اخبار فلسطين – وطن نيوز
فلسطين اليوم – اخبار فلسطين اليوم
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-01-23 11:25:00
A new crisis is brewing across the Atlantic, this time revolving around the Danish island of Greenland. The dilemma does not lie in the details of that crisis, as much as it reflects European confusion in the face of a new era, in which the United States is not the ally and partner, but rather the competitor and may be the enemy. The escalation and intensity of crises across the Atlantic raises many questions, not only regarding a Western transatlantic strategic partnership that has lasted for decades, but also regarding the liberal ideological rules that have governed Western culture, politics, and economy, around the theory of democratic peace, and the prohibition of war between those peoples that adopt it. US President Donald Trump was not satisfied with an economic and commercial threat to his Western allies, but he also resorted to threatening them militarily, when he stated the possibility of invading the Danish island by force, placing his allies and enemies indiscriminately under the arrows of the same threat of excessive force that the United States possesses, as a means of pressure and coercion. By force, Trump kidnapped the President of Venezuela, attacking its sovereignty, just as he attacked Iran’s sovereignty, directing his country’s missiles to destroy its capabilities, and today he threatens to wipe it off the face of the earth through a nuclear threat. By force, Trump imposes solutions on the Palestinians in Gaza, in an issue whose justice no country in the world disagrees with, and the historical injustice that befell the Palestinians. Does the United States’ international behavior constitute a prelude to new strategic policies by other Arctic powers, especially Western ones? Trump’s recent threats to control the Arctic island of Greenland were not surprising, as he hinted at this years ago in his first term, when he proposed the idea of buying it in 2019, and held informal talks with Denmark about it. He returned and threatened to do so last year, after his second rise to power. In recent decades, geopolitical interest in the Arctic region has increased, and the United States has begun to speak openly about the importance of Greenland. This island has always been important to the United States. Since the nineteenth century, US Secretary of State William Seward considered that purchasing Greenland from Denmark would be a useful strategic step, according to expansionist logic, as well as dominating the North Atlantic corridors, as a major player in future Arctic trade routes, as well as competing with great powers, and consolidating its global position, which came within the framework of the land purchase strategy in that period. In 1910, a proposal for a land exchange involving Greenland with Denmark was discussed. After the end of World War II in 1946, the United States once again officially offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million, during the era of President Harry Truman at the beginning of the Cold War. During World War II, the US Army built military bases in Greenland, and in 1951, the United States signed a defense treaty with Denmark that allowed the former to maintain bases and a military presence, which made the island a permanent strategic defense point. During its conflict with the Soviet Union, Washington was keen to secure sites in the Arctic to monitor Soviet movements and fortify its defensive capabilities. The importance of Greenland announced today for the United States lies in its strategic location, as it is located at the entrance to the Arctic, between North America and Europe, and overlooks the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic, making it an air and sea link between the two continents. Therefore, it is considered a strategic gateway or corridor for ships and submarines passing through northern Europe, and vital to Atlantic security. The island is also located at the highest northern latitudes, making it the shortest flight route between the two continents compared to traditional routes. The United States uses its military base on the island for the purposes of monitoring maritime and air movements in the Arctic, in addition to its military role. From an American military perspective, this location is also essential as possible lines of missile routes directed against the United States through the North Pole. Therefore, the United States considers its control over the island’s military airspace important for early monitoring and response in the event of potential attacks. The United States already has a major air base on the island in which radars and space tracking devices are installed for early warning. Economically, the importance of the island has increased with the melting of ice as a result of climate change, so sea routes pass through the Arctic faster than traditional routes, which reduces the time of commercial transportation between Europe, Asia and America. This comes in addition to the availability of large reserves of oil, gas, and rare minerals, such as uranium and rare earth metals, which are necessary for modern technology. Trump’s statement about his goals of controlling the island to besiege the influence of Russia and China in the Arctic, in light of the lack of a military or security presence of the two countries around it, is surprising. However, Greenland’s location in relation to the United States and in relation to its rival Arctic powers, Russia and China, may partly answer these statements. The island is geographically closest in location to the United States compared to the countries of the European continent itself, to which the island belongs, in addition to being not far from Russian territory, not to mention its defensive and early warning role. However, the more comprehensive answer may relate to Trump’s current plans and his tendencies towards attacking the allies of Russia and China, which have already begun in Venezuela, and extend to existing threats against Iran, in light of the openness to a broader war scenario, which the United States may need, if it occurs, to secure itself from possible attacks. The following developments already indicate this. Recent Western media reports indicated the movement of the US aircraft carrier group “USS Abraham Lincoln” to the Middle East region, which was spotted sailing away. About the Philippines, towards the region. The region also witnessed American military air reinforcements in recent days, as 12 F-15E Strike Eagle fighter aircraft departed from the RAF Lakenheath base in Britain towards the Middle East. A number of international newspapers recently reported news about the movement of a number of KC-135 air refueling planes, and the acceleration of C-17 flights from Britain to the region, which are giant planes designated for transporting large quantities of equipment, soldiers, and heavy vehicles. Trump also spoke of additional reinforcements that could be heading to the region, including missile cruisers and destroyers, as well as Air Force fighter squadrons and ground-based air and missile defense systems. Previous reports mentioned the transfer of an advanced Virginia-type nuclear submarine to the American base in the western Pacific Ocean, near China. All of these recent American moves can be considered within the framework of raising preparedness in those areas. There are about 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East, in countries such as Qatar, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Information was leaked about the temporary evacuation of some aircraft and personnel from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. Trump’s recent statements about Greenland caused a political crisis with his Western allies, which they considered a violation of the sovereignty of Denmark and the entire European continent. Trump announced that the United States will impose 10% customs duties on imports from eight countries, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, starting at the beginning of next month, and will rise to 25% in the middle of this year, if these countries do not accept America’s purchase of Greenland, which he considered American control of a national security issue. With Trump escalating his ambitions in Greenland, Europe stands in a united front that rejects any change in the island’s sovereignty, and any attempt to annex it. Eight European countries, including France, Germany, and Britain, responded in a joint statement rejecting the American threat to impose escalating customs duties on countries that support the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland, considering that it “undermines transatlantic relations, threatens the security of allies, and may push relations to a serious deterioration.” France called for the activation of European Union anti-coercion mechanisms if Trump carries out his threats, which is a tool aimed at preventing American companies from accessing the common European market. The European response also focused on demands to strengthen security cooperation in the Arctic region, warning of the danger of US policy to the future of NATO, and the conflict between allies. Proposals have also begun to surface about economic responses and counter-tariffs, in order to protect European sovereignty from American ambitions, which are now affecting Western allies. The European Union did not ratify the framework agreement on trade with Washington last July, after opposition to the agreement escalated in the European Parliament over a period of months. This rejection reached its peak on Saturday when the largest political bloc in the European Parliament, the center-right European People’s Party, announced that it would not vote in favor of the agreement in light of Trump’s threats. Last year, the European bloc drafted a list of customs sanctions amounting to 93 billion euros in response to American policies. Although it has not been implemented, the list remains an available weapon if the leaders decide to adopt it in their meeting simultaneous with the currently ongoing “Davos” economic forum. These developments indicate a rift within NATO, the largest and most powerful collective Western military institution in the world, and European concern is rising about the repercussions on the cohesion of the alliance, and its impact on European security as a whole. This reminds us of the crisis that Trump created during his first term over NATO funding, threatening to withdraw from it, and forcing its members to raise their contribution to NATO’s budget by 5% of their countries’ budgets, in order to rid the United States of the largest financial burden, a crisis that raised alarm bells among the Europeans in their alliance with the United States. Trump followed this up by imposing customs duties on his Western partners at the beginning of this year, which he later retracted. Trump’s threats affected financial markets, as the dollar index and US stocks declined while the value of competitive commodities such as gold and silver rose, reflecting investors’ anxiety about the prospects of a broader trade escalation. Despite its military and economic strength, the United States has a major weakness, as it depends on others to pay its debts through a large external deficit. The US national debt exceeds $38 trillion, and the country will record a deficit of $1.78 trillion in 2025. Europe is the largest lender to the United States: European countries own US bonds and stocks worth $8 trillion. The dollar also derives its value from the position of the United States, and is not backed by gold like other currencies, which puts its value at risk whenever confidence in the United States is shaken. The French Finance Minister warned that America’s attempt to control Greenland would lead to Europe searching for trading partners and supporting multilateral alternatives, which may benefit the values of cooperation with the BRICS in the future. The tension between Europe and the United States may open room for BRICS member states to strengthen their strategy. BRICS is a global economic group founded in 2009. It includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and expanded to include other countries after that. The group aims primarily to enhance cooperation between emerging economies and rebalance the global financial system away from Western hegemony and the US dollar. This has become entrenched due to economic crises and the imposition of US and Western sanctions on countries such as Russia, Iran and others. The “BRICS” considers that the reliance of traditional international trade systems on the US dollar as the dominant reserve currency for international transactions represents an obstacle to the growth of its countries’ economies, and has caused them to be exposed to economic shocks, especially when geopolitical tensions occur. Plans were put forward in the “BRICS” to develop a “common currency” or a payment system through the “BRICS”, to reduce dependence on the dollar and move towards digital financial settlements in the local official currencies of its countries. The BRICS group is moving to expand payments not linked to the dollar, as the group’s countries seek to move away from the SWIFT banking correspondence system, which is controlled by the United States. The Indian Central Bank recently proposed linking the official central digital currencies of the BRICS countries to facilitate cross-border trade and payment, which gradually reduces dependence on the dollar. While there is no consensus yet within the BRICS on a single currency, Moscow and Beijing are leading the BRICS Pay initiative, an electronic payment messaging system that facilitates trade between the BRICS countries in their local currencies. It is worth noting that trade in commodities, especially oil, in currencies other than the dollar has witnessed a noticeable increase in recent years. Despite the BRICS attempts, the US currency is still the largest global reserve currency, but its share in reserves has been declining over the years, which reflects an indication of a gradual decline in overall dominance. Trump warned the BRICS countries against replacing the dollar as a reserve currency, repeating his previous threat to impose heavy customs duties on them. Can the euro and the currencies of the BRICS countries reduce global dependence on the US currency, in light of the escalation of global tensions raised by Trump’s behavior in the foreseeable future?
