Why Moscow Is Staying Quiet on Trump’s Renewed Interest in Greenland

 Nanonews:. Russia’s Calculated Silence on Trump’s Greenland Remarks

Russia, the world’s largest Arctic power, has so far avoided publicly responding to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed claims that the United States should take control of Greenland for national security reasons. The absence of a reaction has drawn attention, particularly as China swiftly criticized Washington’s rhetoric and intentions in the Arctic.

Trump’s comments, which included suggestions that military force could be used if necessary, prompted sharp rebuttals from Beijing. Chinese officials accused the U.S. of exaggerating external threats to justify expanding its own strategic footprint in Greenland. Moscow, however, has taken a notably different approach — choosing silence.

Arctic Stakes and Strategic Priorities

Russia has extensive economic, military, and geopolitical interests in the Arctic. It controls more than half of the Arctic Ocean’s coastline and relies heavily on the region for energy production, shipping routes, and national defense infrastructure. The Arctic also hosts Russia’s Northern Sea Route, a key maritime corridor connecting Europe and Asia, along with major oil, gas, and mineral projects that are central to the country’s economy.

Given these stakes, Russia might be expected to object strongly to any proposal that could alter the balance of power in the Arctic. Yet analysts suggest that Greenland itself holds limited direct strategic value for Moscow compared with broader geopolitical considerations.

NATO Divisions Matter More to Moscow

Security experts argue that Russia’s restraint reflects a larger strategic calculation: the potential strain Trump’s remarks place on NATO unity. Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member, and any unilateral U.S. move would risk deepening rifts within the alliance.

From Moscow’s perspective, internal discord within NATO could be more advantageous than confronting Washington directly over Greenland. Analysts note that Russia has long viewed political fragmentation within the alliance as more effective than military confrontation in weakening Western influence.

If tensions over Greenland were to escalate into a transatlantic crisis, it could divert U.S. attention away from Europe and reduce support for Ukraine — an outcome Russia would likely welcome.

European Concerns and Diplomatic Fallout

European leaders have firmly rejected the idea that Greenland could be claimed or annexed, emphasizing that decisions regarding the island rest solely with Greenland and Denmark. Danish officials have warned that any attempt to seize the territory by force would fundamentally undermine NATO itself.

The controversy has already unsettled European capitals, reinforcing concerns about alliance cohesion and long-term security commitments. Diplomatic discussions between U.S. and Danish officials are expected, but the broader political implications remain uncertain.

A Strategic Win Without Speaking

For Russia, Trump’s statements may represent an opportunity rather than a threat. By remaining silent, Moscow avoids escalation while allowing tensions within NATO to intensify on their own. Analysts suggest that this hands-off approach enables Russia to benefit from Western divisions without bearing diplomatic or strategic costs.

In that sense, Russia’s silence on Greenland appears less like indifference and more like a deliberate strategy — one that reflects its long-standing objective of weakening NATO politically rather than confronting it directly.