The Echoes of 2014
In February 2014, Russian forces seized Crimea from Ukraine in what became the first forcible annexation of European territory since World War II. The European Union’s response was tepid at best—sanctions that many characterized as symbolic, diplomatic protests that faded into bureaucratic inertia, and a collective hope that perhaps Putin would simply stop there.
He did not stop.
Eleven years later, as I write from Kamloops, British Columbia—where I have joined every Saturday since February 24, 2022, in standing with Ukraine—I watch history rhyme in the most disturbing of ways. The United States President is now openly threatening to annex Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO ally. He speaks of taking it “the easy way or the hard way” (BBC News, 2026). His special envoy declares that a deal “should and will be made” (Deutsche Welle, 2026).
The parallels are not subtle. They are screaming.
Europe’s Awakening—Better Late Than Never
What is different this time? Europe appears to be waking up.
Within days of Trump’s intensified threats, German reconnaissance units, French soldiers, Norwegian officers, and troops from Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have arrived in Greenland (Deutsche Welle, 2026). German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius speaks of examining whether Eurofighter jets and frigates could be deployed (Deutsche Welle, 2026). A German politician has even floated boycotting the 2026 World Cup in response (Deutsche Welle, 2026).
One cannot help but wonder: where was this resolve in 2014? Where was this coordinated European military response when Russian “little green men” appeared in Simferopol? When Crimean Tatars began their long persecution? When Ukrainian sovereignty was treated as a negotiable abstraction?
The answer, painfully, is that it was absent. Europe hoped that appeasement would purchase peace. It purchased only escalation—culminating in the full-scale invasion of February 2022, hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, and a continent’s security architecture in ruins.
Perhaps Greenland is where Europe finally learns the lesson that should have been learned in Crimea: you cannot negotiate with those who view your sovereignty as merely an obstacle to their ambitions.
“No Such Thing as a Better Colonizer”
Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council and former member of both the Greenlandic and Danish parliaments, offered what may be the most piercing analysis of this crisis: “We want to say loud and clear that there’s no such thing as a better colonizer” (Windeyer, 2026).
This statement cuts through the rhetoric of “liberation” and “protection” that accompanies all imperial projects. Whether Putin claims to protect Russian speakers in Crimea, or Trump claims to protect Greenlanders from Russian and Chinese threats, the underlying logic is identical: we know what is best for you better than you know yourselves.
The Greenlandic people have spoken clearly; they do not wish to be Americans (BBC News, 2026). They also, it should be noted, increasingly desire independence from Denmark (BBC News, 2026). But that is their choice to make—not Washington’s, not Copenhagen’s, not Moscow’s, not Beijing’s.
Indigenous self-determination is not a bargaining chip in great power competition. The Inuit of Greenland, like the Crimean Tatars who have suffered so grievously under Russian occupation, have the right to determine their own futures. The violence done to that principle in Crimea should have taught us this lesson. We must not require another tragedy to relearn it.
Venezuela: The Emboldening
What changed in recent weeks to accelerate this crisis? The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces—an operation that would have been unthinkable under previous administrations—appears to have fundamentally altered calculations in Washington.
If the United States can conduct such an operation against a sovereign nation in its traditional sphere of influence, why not extend that logic northward? As Laakkuluk Williamson, an Iqaluit resident with Greenlandic roots, observed, the Venezuela operation “served as a wakeup call” (Windeyer, 2026). Greenland, with a population of 56,000, would have little ability to resist an American military action (Windeyer, 2026).
And then came the spectacle of the Nobel medal.
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who received the Nobel Peace Prize last month for her long struggle against Maduro’s authoritarian regime, presented her physical medal to Trump at the White House on Thursday (Bryant, 2026). Within hours, Trump posted on Truth Social that Machado “presented me with her Nobel peace prize for the work I have done” (Bryant, 2026).
The Norwegian Nobel Committee was quick to clarify: “A medal can change owners, but the title of a Nobel peace prize laureate cannot.” The prize “cannot be revoked, shared or transferred” (Bryant, 2026).
Norwegian political leaders called the gesture “absurd” and “unbelievably embarrassing” (Bryant, 2026). Kirsti Bergstø, leader of Norway’s Socialist Left party, noted the bitter irony: “Trump’s repeated threats toward Greenland clearly demonstrate why it would have been madness to award him the prize” (Bryant, 2026). Trygve Slagsvold Vedum, leader of the Centre party, was more blunt: Trump is “a classic showoff who wants to adorn himself with other people’s honours and work” (Bryant, 2026).
The framed medal now sits in the White House, inscribed with gratitude for Trump’s “principled and decisive action to secure a free Venezuela” (Bryant, 2026)—while the same president threatens military force against the Indigenous peoples of Greenland who have clearly stated they do not want American control.
This is not about liberating peoples. It has never been about peoples. It is about resources, strategic positioning, and the insatiable logic of imperial expansion dressed in the language of freedom.
The Hollow Promise of “Security”
Trump claims the United States needs to control Greenland for “national security.” But what kind of security is he offering?
On January 7, 2026—just days before the intensified threats against Greenland—a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, in Minneapolis (Wertheimer, 2026). Good was an award-winning poet, a devoted Christian who had gone on youth missions in her younger years, and by all accounts from her family, “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known” (Wertheimer, 2026).
She had lived in Minneapolis for less than a year. She died blocks from her home (Wertheimer, 2026).
The Trump administration called her a “domestic terrorist” (Wertheimer, 2026). Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who reviewed the video footage, called that characterization “bullshit” and said the agent had “recklessly used power that resulted in somebody dying” (Wertheimer, 2026).
Good’s widow, Rebecca, released a statement: “On Wednesday, January 7th, we stopped to support our neighbors. We had whistles. They had guns” (Wertheimer, 2026).
This is the security being offered? Federal agents killing mothers in American streets while the president claims he needs to annex Arctic territory to keep people safe?
The location of Good’s death carries its own terrible symbolism—about one mile from where George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020, sparking worldwide protests against state violence (Wertheimer, 2026).
When Trump speaks of protecting Greenland’s 56,000 Inuit residents from unnamed Russian and Chinese threats, one must ask: who will protect them from the protectors? The Inuit of Greenland have watched what American “protection” looks like domestically. They have seen the treatment of Indigenous peoples within American borders. They have seen Renee Nicole Good.
They have said clearly: No.
The Trickle-Down Myth
Trump’s supporters argue that his aggressive posture serves American interests, that strength abroad translates to prosperity at home, that the benefits will trickle down to ordinary Americans.
We have heard this before. We have seen its results.
The concentration of wealth continues unabated. The promises of shared prosperity remain unfulfilled. What trickles down is not wealth but the normalization of might-makes-right, the erosion of international norms, and the message to every strongman worldwide that borders are merely suggestions for those with sufficient military power.
When the United States—the guarantor of the post-World War II international order— speaks and acts like the powers that order was designed to constrain, we have entered genuinely uncharted territory.
The Colonizer’s Mirror
I must pause here to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: neither Canada nor Denmark stands on uncontaminated moral ground.
Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples—the residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, the ongoing crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the boil-water advisories that persist in First Nations communities, the disproportionate incarceration rates—represents an ongoing colonial project, not merely a historical one. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission named it clearly: cultural genocide.
Denmark’s relationship with Greenland, while evolving toward greater autonomy, carries its own colonial weight. The forced relocations, the suppression of Inuit culture and language, the economic dependencies deliberately created—these are not ancient history. Greenland remains, in many ways, a colony still negotiating the terms of its own existence.
So how can Canada or Denmark claim any moral authority to resist American expansionism?
The answer is not that we are innocent. We are not. The answer is that the appropriate response to historical colonialism is not more colonialism. The path forward is acknowledgment, accountability, and the hard work of reconciliation—not the normalization of territorial seizure as simply what powerful nations do.
When Sara Olsvig says “there is no such thing as a better colonizer,” she indicts us all (Windeyer, 2026). She indicts Denmark’s history. She indicts Canada’s ongoing failures. And she indicts the United States’ assumption that its version of control would somehow be benevolent.
The lesson of our colonial histories should not be “others did it, so we can too.” It should be “we did this, we see the harm, and we must ensure it never happens again—not by us, not by anyone.”
This is why Indigenous voices must be central to this conversation, not peripheral. The Inuit Circumpolar Council, representing Inuit across Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and Russia, understands colonialism not as abstraction but as lived experience (Windeyer, 2026). When they speak, they speak with the authority of those who have survived what others merely study.
If Canada and Denmark wish to credibly oppose American annexation of Greenland, they must simultaneously accelerate their own reconciliation efforts. Otherwise, we are merely arguing about which empire gets to exploit whom—a debate that has no moral winners.
Canada’s Last Stand
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, where they discussed Greenland’s sovereignty, represents a remarkable realignment (Ritchie, 2026). That Canada must seek alignment with China on the question of territorial integrity in the Arctic speaks to how dramatically the ground has shifted beneath our feet.
Make no mistake: if Greenland falls—whether through coerced “negotiation” or outright force—Canada is next.
Trump has already spoken openly of making Canada the “51st state.” He has imposed punitive tariffs. He has questioned the legitimacy of the border. Greenland is not merely about Greenland; it is about whether the principle of territorial integrity means anything at all when the violator is the United States rather than Russia or China.
Canadian sovereignty is not guaranteed by geography, tradition, or good intentions. It is guaranteed only by our willingness to defend it and the willingness of the international community to uphold the norms that protect smaller nations from larger ones.
If those norms collapse, we are all Crimea.
The Logic of Strongmen
There is a through-line connecting Putin’s seizure of Crimea, his invasion of Ukraine, and Trump’s threats against Greenland. It is the logic of strongmen who believe that might makes right, that history is written by those with the largest armies, and that international law is merely an inconvenience to be discarded when it conflicts with desire.
Putin will not stop until he is stopped. He has made this clear through a decade of escalation. And Trump, emboldened by Venezuela, appears to be applying the same calculus: push until you meet resistance, and if no resistance comes, push further.
The European troops now arriving in Greenland represent the beginning of that resistance (Crawley, 2026). But resistance must be sustained to be meaningful. The mistake of 2014—treating an annexation as an isolated incident rather than the opening move in a larger strategy—cannot be repeated.
Conclusion: Sovereignty Belongs to Peoples, Not Empires
As someone who has spent nearly four years standing in weekly gatherings for Ukraine, who immigrated to Canada seeking the values of democracy and rule of law, and who teaches social policy that depends upon the stability of international norms, I find myself at a loss for polite conclusions.
The situation is as clear as it is alarming: the leader of the world’s most powerful democracy is employing the rhetoric and logic of territorial annexation that we have condemned in Vladimir Putin for over a decade. If we lack the moral clarity to name this for what it is—and the courage to resist it—then we have already ceded the principles upon which any just international order depends.
But I must be careful here about what principles I am defending.
I cannot simply say “Greenland belongs to Greenlanders, Ukraine belongs to Ukrainians, Canada belongs to Canadians” and consider that a principled stand. For Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island, such a statement merely affirms one colonial project while opposing another. The Cree, Dene, Inuit, Anishinaabe, Haida, and hundreds of other nations never agreed that “Canada” could possess their lands. Many treaties were broken; many lands were never ceded at all.
So let me try to say this more carefully:
The Inuit of Kalaallit Nunaat—Greenland—have the right to determine their own future. The peoples of Ukraine have the right to determine their own future. And on these lands we call Canada, that future must be built through genuine nation-to-nation relationships with the Indigenous peoples whose sovereignty was never legitimately extinguished, whose governance systems predated European contact by millennia, and whose rights exist not because Canada grants them but because they never surrendered them.
The answer to imperialism is not a different empire. The answer to colonialism is not defending an earlier colonialism against a newer one. The answer is the hard, slow, necessary work of recognizing that sovereignty belongs to peoples—not to flags, not to armies, not to those who arrived with greater firepower.
The EU was silent on Crimea. Let it not be silent on Greenland. And let those of us living on Indigenous lands—newcomers like myself—remember that our opposition to American expansionism rings hollow if we are not simultaneously engaged in the work of reconciliation, land acknowledgment that leads to land action, and the dismantling of colonial structures that continue to harm Indigenous peoples today.
Otherwise, we are simply arguing about which empire’s flag should fly—and that argument has no moral winners, only varying degrees of loss for those whose lands are being claimed.
References
BBC News. (2026, January 16). US lawmakers say they want to lower temperature as Trump ups pressure to annex Greenland. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qpy952xvno
Bryant, M. (2026, January 16). Giving Trump the Nobel peace prize medal is ‘absurd’, say Norwegian politicians. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/16/maria-corina-machado-giving-trump-nobel-peace-prize-medal-absurd-say-norwegian-politicians
Crawley, M. (2026, January 16). How Denmark and Greenland are navigating Trump’s threats. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-greenland-denmark-diplomacy-analysis-9.7047861
Deutsche Welle. (2026, January 16). Greenland: Deal ‘should and will’ be made, Trump envoy says. https://www.dw.com/en/greenland-deal-should-and-will-be-made-trump-envoy-says/live-75533548
Ritchie, S. (2026, January 16). Carney says he spoke with China’s Xi about Greenland. CTV News/The Canadian Press. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/carney-says-he-spoke-with-chinas-xi-about-greenland/
Wertheimer, T. (2026, January 13). Who was Renee Nicole Good, the woman killed by ICE? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jepdjy256o
Windeyer, C. (2026, January 13). ‘No such thing as a better colonizer’: Inuit emphatically reject U.S. takeover of Greenland. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/no-such-thing-as-a-better-colonizer-inuit-emphatically-reject-u-s-takeover-of-greenland-9.7042667
Leave a Reply