Geopolitical tensions are escalating rapidly, with the focus now on Greenland and the North Atlantic situation.

Recently, the Trump administration's attitude toward Greenland has become increasingly aggressive, directly issuing a clear warning to Europe. Meanwhile, U.S. military deployments in the Middle East are also continuing to escalate, forming a dual-front pressure.

The European response is worth noting. Seven European countries have jointly dispatched over 30 military personnel to Greenland, a symbolic but also very clear signal: European nations can no longer tolerate the U.S.'s unilateral actions. In contrast, their stance on the Ukraine situation appears somewhat ambiguous—while verbally supporting Ukraine, there have been few publicly announced troop deployments, indicating European concerns over Russia policy.

However, the reality is harsh. The U.S. has over 200 stationed troops in Greenland, and among the 30-plus European military personnel, excluding logistics and non-combatants, the actual combat strength is evident. This power disparity makes Europe's tough stance seem somewhat feeble.

The U.S. response is equally assertive. State Department spokesperson bluntly stated that Europe's troop deployment has no impact on U.S. strategic intentions, not even a fraction. Trump himself coldly issued a "we'll see" threat, which is no longer just diplomatic rhetoric but a naked warning.

Analyzing the Trump administration's Greenland strategy, there are mainly three possible routes:

**First: Direct Purchase.** But Denmark and Europe have already made it clear that Greenland is not on the negotiation list, so this path is blocked. Negotiations between U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo and Danish Foreign Minister have directly broken down over this issue.

**Second: Promoting independence and then integrating into the U.S.** This plan is also unfeasible. Polls show 85% of Danes are explicitly opposed to Greenland joining the U.S., and Greenland's political parties have jointly expressed no interest in such a move.

**Third: Use of force.** This is the most radical but also the most constrained option. The U.S. is currently stretched thin with military commitments—Venezuela still requires troops for maintenance, the Middle East situation is on the brink, and conflict with Iran is imminent. Coupled with domestic and European strong opposition, any rash military action now would carry risks and costs that are hard to bear.

What makes Europe even more uneasy is that the U.S. ambassador candidate to Iceland recently dropped a bigger bombshell: Iceland could become the 52nd U.S. state. This statement instantly triggered a wave of reactions across Europe, with public opinion erupting. Although the candidate later claimed it was just a joke, the U.S. strategic ambitions and expansionist desires have already been exposed.

The overall situation is moving toward greater confrontation. The U.S. has a clear strength advantage but also faces resource dispersion due to full-scale expansion; Europe, while increasingly united, has limited practical action capability and lacks confidence. The sovereignty of Greenland is far from settled, and Iceland has also been drawn into this vortex. The future developments remain highly uncertain—whether the Trump administration will escalate further, and how Europe will respond, will profoundly influence the evolution of the global landscape.