Global crisis over Greenland, sparked by US president's threat Donald Trump that it will - by force, if necessary - occupy the island, has opened the question of how Montenegro should respond to this, at a time when NATO and the European Union (EU) are under pressure from the United States of America (USA). Interlocutors of "Vijesti" say that Podgorica must respect international law, but also go beyond the framework of mere "swearing" into alliances, leading a measured and strategically based foreign policy.
Commenting on Trump's increased pressure to take over the mineral-rich Arctic island, the former head of Montenegrin diplomacy Miodrag Lekić He said that, although major changes with far-reaching consequences are taking place in the world and although there has been a "strong acceleration of history", in Montenegro much remains slowed down or even without reaction.
"Reducing foreign policy statements to swearing in NATO and the EU, at a time when both international organizations are seriously shaken with an uncertain future - sounds, to put it mildly, frivolous," he told "Vijesti".
On the other hand, a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Washington Siniša Vuković claims that Montenegro, in the case of Greenland, should position itself as a loyal ally that respects international law, that is, to support the territorial integrity of Denmark, counting on the fact that American institutions and the system will ultimately restrain Trump's radical moves before an "irreversible fracture" occurs in the Alliance.
"As a country that is in NATO, but also a candidate aspiring to the EU, Montenegro must carefully calibrate its position," he told the editorial board.
Vuković states that the internal disagreement in Washington on the Greenland issue should be an encouragement to Podgorica that this escalation is not a permanent change in American policy, but a current strategic calculation by one administration.
"Therefore, the wisest move is to quietly but firmly align with EU policy, which offers a more stable and predictable rules-based framework, while Washington's current course offers uncertainty," the source said.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to questions from "Vijesti" yesterday about the Government's position regarding Greenland, given that Montenegro is a member of NATO.
Neither the President of Montenegro Jakov Milatovic did not answer the editorial team's questions, but announced on the "Iks" network that Montenegro respects the right of the citizens of Greenland to self-determination, as well as their decision to be part of Denmark.
"I expect the Government to take clear and consistent positions on this and other important geopolitical issues," Milatović wrote.
Trump has in recent days stepped up pressure for the US to take control of Greenland - an island that is an autonomous territory within Denmark - with messages that it is a security issue for both the United States and the EU. His idea of Greenland becoming part of the US has no support in Congress, where many members, including Republicans, have publicly expressed reservations or outright opposition to such an approach.
Denmark and the Greenland authorities reject the idea of a takeover, and Copenhagen has announced a strengthening of the military presence and security measures on the island and through the NATO framework.
Trump has "shifted" the dispute to the trade arena, further increasing the pressure - he announced, starting February 1, ten percent tariffs on several European countries that oppose his intention to take over Greenland, with the possibility of increasing them.
DON'T MISS IT
President of France Emanuel Macron took a tougher stance than most EU leaders - he "pushed" the idea that the EU activate the strongest instruments against economic pressure (countermeasures, the so-called "trade bazooka" or the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI)) and sent, with several NATO partners, soldiers to Greenland.
Trump then released a private message from Macron in which the French president said, “I don’t understand what you’re doing on Greenland.” He also threatened 200 percent tariffs on French wines and champagne, further heightening tensions.
DON'T MISS IT
Macron said yesterday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that there is a choice between “passively accepting the law of the strongest” - which, he said, would lead to “vassalization and bloc politics” and a “new colonial approach”, which he rejects - or defending “effective multilateralism”. He stressed that national sovereignty and independence are a key part of that approach, and that the recent deployment of French military forces to Greenland is part of an effort to protect this.
In response to Trump's pressure, the EU has begun considering retaliatory measures, with messages that the first choice is negotiation.
Conflict in NATO and the EU's response
Miodrag Lekić believes that the Greenland case can be viewed on two levels. The first, he says, is the immediate conflict on the island, where seven European countries are present, as well as the US military in a base established during the time of the US president (Franklin) Roosevelt, "so, considering that Trump does not rule out conquest", the question of a possible conflict between NATO allies also arises.
He says that this makes the situation almost surreal and leads to absurdity invoking Article 5 of the NATO statute, which calls for joint action by the Alliance if the sovereignty of a member is threatened. He notes that NATO military forces are commanded by an American general.
The second level, Lekić explains, is that Greenland is "just one point in the process of a great redefinition of the world order" and part of a new American doctrine that is changing current geopolitical relations, and therefore, according to him, not everything should be reduced to Trump's specific personality and style.
Responding to the question of whether a possible US intervention in Greenland would mean the end of the NATO alliance, Lekić recalled that Macron had assessed in 2019 that the Alliance was in a state of "brain death". As he says, today many, including on the American side, are talking about the possible end of the Alliance, with the dilemma of whether the turning point is happening in Greenland or has already occurred earlier in Kiev (Ukraine).
"Everything remains uncertain. In all these speculations, voices can also be heard about the formation of a European NATO, which is hard to believe, especially at this difficult moment for the EU," said Lekić, recalling the long-standing idea of forming a European security force.
The interlocutor says he is not sure that the EU knows what their response would be if the United States took over Greenland. He notes that a discussion and possibly stronger measures are expected at the European Council meeting on Thursday regarding Trump's tariffs on European countries present in Greenland, but, he claims, the outcome is uncertain due to divisions among the member states.
He warns that a "double fracture" is underway - between the US and the EU, but also within Europe itself, and that it remains open how many European countries would side with "America first" in a possible choice between Europe and America.
"These are processes and possible directions, with many unknowns. A lot of things change from day to day, not to mention hour to hour...", added Lekić.
A dangerous chip in negotiations
Siniša Vuković states that it is clear that this is a dangerous game of geopolitical poker in which the Greenland issue is primarily a "dangerous chip at the negotiating table." Washington, or rather the current US administration, as he says, is using escalation not as a prelude to an actual invasion, but as a means of coercion to redefine its strategic positioning in the Arctic under more favorable conditions.
According to him, what introduces confusion and uncertainty is the fact that the United States already has all the necessary military privileges through a 2004 agreement with Denmark, which in practice guarantees them a “yes” to any reasonable request.
"The Trump administration clearly believes that this courtesy formula is not enough. Instead of a partnership based on trust, it prefers a transactional ownership model, probably believing that alliances should be based on direct control and profit, not on shared values," Vuković said.
According to him, the key element that is changing the dynamics compared to previous crises is the EU's determination to maintain the existing order. He warns that Brussels no longer has the luxury of remaining a passive observer, and from that perspective, he notes, the announcements of activating options that include anti-coercion instruments (ACI) should be understood.
"With this, the Union sends a clear signal that it is ready to use its economic power as a deterrent," he pointed out.
As he added, the hope still smoldering in European capitals is that the American threat to "purchase" Greenland, and even the military rhetoric, is actually a bluff, i.e. an attempt to project power in order to force Europe to make concessions in other spheres, such as trade or defense spending.
"However, this bluff is risky because it is based on the assumption that the other side will give in first. If the EU remains firm in its stance that sovereignty is not for sale, the Trump administration could find itself in a situation where it has to either back down and lose face, or continue an escalation that benefits no one," Vuković said.
Trump first publicly proposed that the US buy Greenland back in 2019, during his first presidential term, which caused a diplomatic crisis with Denmark as the offer was rejected as "absurd."
After returning to the White House in January 2025, he began to speak more intensely and explicitly about the US needing to "own" Greenland, often linking it to national and international security and challenging Denmark's sufficient protection of the island.
Domestic noise in the US
Siniša Vuković believes that the "noise" on the domestic front in the US regarding Greenland further complicates the White House's position, which, he adds, allies must monitor carefully.
"There is strong bipartisan resistance in Congress to any adventure in the Arctic, and public opinion has no appetite for conflict with allies over territory that already functions as a friendly base. This internal discord is a signal that Trump's radical approach does not have systemic support from the American state," Vuković said.
However, he adds, the danger lies in how long this "game of nerves" can last. He believes that the next step on the escalation ladder could be an American reduction in security cooperation or the withdrawal of some forces from Europe as a punitive measure.
"This is a slippery slope that leads to the essential, if not formal, end of NATO. If the United States starts to condition Article 5 on trade concessions or territorial demands, the Alliance loses its purpose," Vuković concluded.
Bonus video:
