Dim Amor
The debate surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump’s ambitions regarding Greenland does not take place in a vacuum. It is charged with deep historical, geopolitical, and perceptual contexts, foremost among them the precedent set by Russia in 2014 with the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and the establishment of control over roughly 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory. For actors on the international stage, including the Kremlin, the same dangerous logic applies: if the seizure of territory by force or political pressure is met with international accommodation, why should it not become legitimate in other arenas as well.
When Russia annexed Crimea and supported the takeover of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the international response included harsh condemnations and the imposition of sanctions. In practice, however, no steps were taken that led to a Russian withdrawal or to a fundamental change in policy. The UN Security Council remained paralyzed, and the sanctions, despite their economic impact, did not alter realities on the ground. In the eyes of various actors, including Russia’s leadership, a clear message emerged: the international system is unable to enforce its own basic rules.
Against this backdrop, Russia is closely monitoring the evolving crisis between the Trump administration and Denmark over Greenland and is systematically exploiting it to advance its own interests. For Moscow, tensions between the United States and Europe, particularly within NATO and the European Union, represent a strategic opportunity to deepen polarization and weaken the unified Western front confronting it.
At the annual press conference summarizing the Russian Foreign Ministry’s activities for 2025, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov directly addressed the Greenland issue. In response to a question about whether Russia poses a threat to the island and how its actions in Ukraine should be compared to colonialism, Lavrov claimed that Russia has “no plans whatsoever regarding Greenland” and that this is an “internal matter of NATO and Denmark.” He went on to present a familiar narrative, according to which Russia has “always developed through the unification of peoples and the preservation of their cultures,” in contrast to the West, and described the annexation of Crimea and involvement in Donbas as the “exercise of the right to self-determination” rather than a colonial act.
In these remarks, Lavrov drew a direct, albeit implicit, comparison between Greenland and the Crimean Peninsula. He emphasized that if the United States is entitled to invoke national security considerations to justify an attempt to acquire or take control of Greenland, there is no reason Russia should be viewed as exceptional for acting in a similar manner in Crimea—especially when, according to his claim, a referendum was held there in which residents chose to join Russia. At the same time, Lavrov did not refrain from taking a swipe at European states, pointing to their support for the right of Greenland’s inhabitants to determine their future, while refusing to recognize a similar right for the residents of Donbas or Crimea.
Beyond the direct comparison, the Kremlin highlights what it defines as “internal flaws” within the NATO alliance. From Moscow’s perspective, the confrontation between Washington and Copenhagen makes it possible to portray the United States—even under Trump’s leadership—as an overbearing power that does not respect the sovereignty of its closest allies. This narrative is directed not only at Europe, but also at countries of the Global South, where Russia seeks to establish an image of an anti-colonial force, while depicting the West as continuing to treat territories and peoples as geopolitical commodities.
President Vladimir Putin himself has also addressed American ambitions regarding Greenland. In March 2025, in a speech at the Arctic Forum in Murmansk, he stated that this is “an issue concerning two specific states,” but warned that “it would be a profound mistake not to take Trump’s words seriously.” Putin recalled that U.S. interest in Greenland dates back to the nineteenth century and stressed that Washington will act consistently to advance its military, economic, and strategic interests in the Arctic region. At the same time, he added a clear caveat, expressing concern over the increased NATO presence in the far north and the accession of Finland and Sweden to the alliance.
Russia’s position appears, at first glance, contradictory. On the one hand, Moscow should not welcome the transformation of Greenland into a massive American base in a region of critical importance to its security. On the other, it shows understanding and even a degree of openness toward Trump’s moves. The explanation lies in a cold calculation of interests: from the Kremlin’s perspective, the damage inflicted on Europe and NATO by a deepening internal rift is less severe than the potential harm to Russia, and may even yield a clear strategic gain—especially as long as Trump remains in the White House.
It should be remembered that for Russia, the Arctic itself is even more important than Greenland. Over the past two decades, Moscow has dramatically increased its military activity in the region, reopened bases that were closed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and deployed permanent forces while taking advantage of melting ice. Russia also possesses the world’s largest icebreaker fleet—more than 40 vessels, eight of them nuclear-powered—while the United States currently has only two operational icebreakers.
In this reality, the Kremlin is observing the escalating confrontation between Trump and Denmark and the growing anxieties in Europe, viewing them as developments that serve its objectives. From Russia’s perspective, American conduct around Greenland is not merely a regional crisis, but further evidence of a deep erosion of the international order—an erosion from which it seeks to extract the maximum possible benefit.
The photographs were taken from Wikipedia.org and the Associated Press news agency and are used in accordance with Section 27A of the Copyright Law.
