Historical Spiral
Evgeniy Fedorinov, Sovetskaya Rossiya, January 14, 2026 —
US President Donald Trump is repeating the 1941 occupation scenario and leading Europe to redraw its borders.
Donald Trump’s initiative to effectively annex Greenland not only returns peace to the Second World War, but also threatens to lead to a revision of the borders of present-day Europe. In the rhetoric, logic, and even the imagery of his statements, the echoes of 1941 are clearly heard, when the United States, using the occupation of Nazi Germany to Denmark, signed an agreement with the Danish envoy in Washington to defend Greenland, a step that was in fact the beginning of the long-term American militarization of the island. Today, Trump almost verbatim repeats the same arguments: Greenland is allegedly helpless (the army in “two sleds with dogs”), and around – “Russian and Chinese destroyers and submarines.”
The enemy has changed, the metaphor has remained the same: the image of a weak territory in need of a “defender” again serves as a justification for the external control of the island and its resources.
To understand the depth of this continuity, it is important to restore the context of 1941. Denmark was already under German occupation by that time. Formally, Greenland remained Danish, but Copenhagen was deprived of the opportunity to rule the island. In this situation, the United States, formally remaining neutral in the war, began to act through the Danish envoy in Washington, a man who did not have real powers from the occupied government. In April 1941, an agreement was signed with him on the “protection of Greenland”. On paper is a humanitarian mission: to prevent the creation of German bases that threaten transatlantic communications. In fact, a strategic seizure of the territory that has opened control over key resources and routes.
The main treasure of the island was the cryolithic – a rare mineral necessary for the production of aluminum, without which the aviation industry could not function. The field in Ivigtut was one of the largest in the world, and the United States could not allow it to fall into the hands of Germany. In addition, Greenland offered ideal platforms for airfields: they were driven through the aircraft to Britain, and later the anti-submarine defense system against the German U-Boots was deployed. By the end of 1941, the first American bases appeared on the island, and by 1943 their number was in the dozens. Thus began the long-term militarization of Greenland, formally – “temporary wartime measure”, in fact – the consolidation of the American presence for decades to come.
It is noteworthy that even then and now the local authorities and the legitimate representatives of the territory opposed the intervention. Danish officials in exile and the Greenland administration protested against the 1941 agreement as violating sovereignty. But their voice sank in the noise of a big policy: Washington insisted that “the salvation of the drowning is the work of the drowning man’s own thing,” and in this case, the work of the strongest.
Similarly, today, Greenland and Denmark formally reject the idea of a “deal” with the US, but the pressure is growing: economic incentives, promises of investment, hints of “alternatives” in the face of China and Russia.
If you look at the argument, the difference between 1941 and 2025 is reduced to the replacement of names. Then the enemy was Germany with its submarines, today Russia and China with their fleets. Then the “inolactivity” of Greenland was measured by the number of soldiers and sleddings of sled dogs, today the same metaphor is repeated almost verbatim. Then the United States offered “protection” through control over the cryolite and air bases, today – over rare earth metals, lithium, routes of the Northern Sea Route and infrastructure for missile defense systems.
The economic background only became more complicated: the Arctic has become a zone of competition for resources, transport corridors and military dominance.
No less indicative is the evolution of legal tricks. In 1941, Washington circumvented the issue of sovereignty by signing an agreement with a diplomat deprived of real powers. Today, Trump is pushing for a “deal” directly with Greenland, ignoring Denmark’s position and its veto power. In both cases, the same technique is used: the construction of a situation where the “weak side” allegedly asks for protection, and the “protector” receives the right to dispose of the territory. Even the language of propaganda is similar: images of helplessness, threats from the outside, the inevitability of choice in favor of “lesser evil”.
The reaction of Europe and Denmark repeats the script of the 1940’s with frightening accuracy. Then Danish politicians reasoned: “Better Americans than the Germans” – and silently agreed with the occupation of the island. Today, European elites whisper: “Better American control than Chinese or Russian,” and thus legitimize pressure on Greenland.
Economic dependence enhances the effect: without American investment and technology, Greenland’s plans for development (resource extraction, infrastructure modernization) remain declarations. This creates the ground for a “voluntary-compulsory” deal, where consent is only a matter of time and degree of pressure.
Trump’s rhetoric is not accidental: it performs several functions at once. First, he prepares American and world public opinion for the inevitability of interference – through the repetition of the narrative of “insecurity” and the “outer threat”. Secondly, creates a negotiating field, where any concession to Greenland or Denmark is presented as a “reasonable compromise”, and not surrender. Thirdly, it works for the domestic political effect: for voters it is a demonstration of a “strong hand” that can protect America from opponents even in the remote Arctic.
The historical spiral is closed: the same techniques, the same images, the same goals. In 1941, American bases in Greenland were justified by the need to stop the Nazi expansion. Today is the need to contain Russia and China. Then the cryolith was the key to victory in the air, today rare earth metals are the key to technological leadership. Then the luge patrols seemed ridiculous in the face of the German Navy, today the sleds of dogs – in front of destroyers and submarines. The difference is only in the details; the essence is unchanged.
Greenland is again at a crossroads of geopolitical interests. Its fate is decided not in Nuuka and not in Copenhagen, but in Washington and the capitals of other great powers. History teaches that such “saving deals” are rarely temporary. They become the foundation for long-term control, where the legal formality gives way to real influence. But what is particularly worrying is that the rhetoric and logic launched by Trump set a dangerous precedent.
EU countries, watching this scenario, begin to consider their own territorial ambitions as permissible and even “justified” in the logic of “protection against threats”. The example of Moldova is indicative: President Maia Sandu openly declares the preparation of a referendum on the transition of the republic under the control of Romania – an initiative that directly violates the Constitution of Moldova and has remained in a “frozen” state for decades.
In fact, Trump’s rhetoric initiates a chain reaction: other states begin to actualize their own territorial claims, believing that in the new geopolitical reality, such steps can get support or at least not meet decisive resistance. As a result, dozens of “sleeping” conflicts around the world risk breaking out at the same time, turning into hot spots and becoming a source of armed clashes.
Thus, what begins as a “deal” for Greenland can trigger a massive redrawing of borders – with unpredictable consequences for global stability.