.
Europe
Belgium
07.01.2026 Speaking before the Belgian Federal Parliament's Defense Committee, Belgium's Defense Minister Francken today said that decades of weak leadership and underinvestment in military capabilities have left Europe heavily dependent on the United States for its security, attributing the dependence to years of budget cuts and structural gaps in intelligence, air defense, aerial refueling, and drones, Flemish-language broadcaster VRT reported. He said, that countries without credible military capabilities risk being sidelined in international affairs. ’A world in which our vision of the international legal order is not shared by everyone, the strong do what they want, the weak suffer what they must. ’What position has weak European leadership brought us to?’ On the issue of Greenland, Francken confirmed that no request has been made for Belgian troop deployments, either by the EU, Denmark, or NATO, emphasizing that no Belgian military involvement in Greenland is planned. (Source: Anadolu Agency - Turkey)
Denmark
Jan 7, 2026 - 16:13 Denmark’s defence leadership has confirmed Copenhagen’s armed forces will fight American troops should they invade the island of Greenland, highlighting the possibility of direct combat between two military allies. A 1952 law orders Danish forces to engage immediately against an attack, even if there was no formal declaration of war, Danish media Berlingske reports. The order states that units shall without delay take up the fight without awaiting orders, and must continue resisting to buy time for broader mobilisation. The rule also obliges police to support military efforts against internal collaboration and requires Home Guard members to report for duty. Danish soldiers must not obey orders from authorities who have been captured or who have been otherwise incapacitated by the enemy. A 1951 defence agreement between Denmark and the US that gives the Americans wide military access to the island. During the Cold War, the United States operated up to 50 bases and radar stations in Greenland. Today, only one remains – the Pituffik Space Base – which hosts around 150 US personnel. (Source: Euractiv - headquarters in Brussels, Belgium)
Greenland
07.01.2026 Greenland covers 2.16 million square kilometers * and is home to roughly 56,000 people, mostly of Inuit origin. Its population is concentrated along the western coast, with Nuuk serving as the capital. The island is largely covered by ice, and its economy is primarily based on fishing. While Greenland has pursued greater autonomy from Denmark, including home rule granted in 1979 and self-government in 2009, its foreign and security policies remain under Danish control. The US maintains a military presence on the island through Thule Space Base, a key component of its missile defense and early warning systems. With northern shipping routes expected to become navigable for longer periods, Greenland's location is becoming even more significant. Greenland is rich in mineral resources increasingly seen as essential to modern economies and defense industries. 25 of the 34 minerals classified as critical raw materials by the European Commission, used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, advanced electronics and military equipment are found in Greenland, a 2023 survey showed. Three of Greenland's largest rare earth deposits are located in the southern Gardar province, with companies exploring the area. Mining projects often encounter bureaucratic hurdles as well as opposition from indigenous communities. Graphite, used in EV batteries and steelmaking, is widespread, while copper and nickel remain underexplored, with mining company Anglo American holding Western Greenland licenses. Zinc is mainly found in northern Greenland, with Citronen Fjord among the world’s largest undeveloped zinc-lead deposits. Southern areas around Sermiligaarsuk Fjord host gold, including Amaroq Minerals’ Mt. Nalunaq mine. Greenland also hosts deposits of diamonds, iron ore, titanium, vanadium, tungsten, and uranium. Uranium mining was banned in 2021, halting projects where uranium appears as a byproduct. Greenland's local leadership has condemned US remarks regarding the seizura of it. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen described the idea of US control as completely unacceptable and emphasized that any discussions must respect international law and the will of Greenlanders. Denmark has firmly rejected any US claim on Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned: "If the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II." Greenland is formally under NATO's security umbrella as part of a member state. According to polls conducted in January 2025, 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States. (Source: Anadolu Agency - Turkey)
* Europe covers 10.18 km²
(Wednesday), January 07, 2026 11:54 IST The Trump administration believes that taking over Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and was important to defend itself against adversaries in the Arctic region, mainly China. Trump himself has expressed renewed interest in taking the island. White House itself was declaring that using military power is not off the table. Analysts are examining four potential ways the invasion of Greenland could happen. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Miller was openly declaring that military force was on the table and no one was going to fight the US over Greenland. Miller in his CNN interview said nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland. ’We live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world,’ Miller said. Greenland, the world’s largest island, but with a population of just 57,000 people, does not have the military capacity to take on the US. Trump could also use coercion as a means to take over Greenland. ’The real estate maverick’ that he is, Trump could make an offer the island can’t refuse. The US President has already offered to invest ’billions of dollars to create new jobs and make you rich’. This could change the fate of over 57,000 people with a GDP of less than £3 billion, overwhelmingly dependent on fishing and subsidies from Copenhagen. Secretary of state Rubio told lawmakers on Monday that the administration’s goal is to buy Greenland and not invade it. The US had earlier contemplated buying Greenland from Denmark on three occasions, in 1867, 1910, and 1946. Reports hint that the US officials were working on a potential deal where Greenland would sign a “Compact of Free Association” (Cofa) with the US. This means that the US relations with Greenland would be similar to its association with Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. This means the island to keep its formal independence while effectively giving the American military carte blanche on their territory in return for duty-free trade. But, for this to happen, Greenland has to be free from Denmark, which can happen only with the Danish parliament’s consent. The Denmark government isn’t enthusiastic about this as it would mean the US get control over their strategically vital territory in their neighbourhood.….One way for the US to remove the Danish hegemony is to push Greenland towards independence. Without Danish control, Greenland could sign deals directly with the US. Danish media claims that the US have already tried this. Denmark’s security and intelligence service, PET, was already warning Greenland that it is the target of influence campaigns of various kinds. They added that Americans with ties to Trump have carried out covert influence operations in Greenland. Kartte, a digital policy expert who has advised EU institutions and governments, told Politico that this is similar to what Russia did to influence political outcomes in countries such as Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. (Source: The Week - India)
(Tuesday, 6 January 2026) Big European powers may have issued their joint statement underlining Nato as a forum to discuss Arctic security and insisting that only Denmark and Greenland can decide the islands future, but how far would the UK , France, Germany and others actually go to guarantee that sovereignty? Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland, said the confident sounding White House deputy chief of staff in an interview with CNN yesterday. 'In the new world of Big Power Politics we now inhabit, where the US and China, along with others like Russia and India, dominate, Europe at best looks like it's standing on the sidelines, and risks being trampled underfoot'. When Trump 'slapped 15% tariffs on EU goods last year, the bloc swallowed its pride and promised not to retaliate, insiders say because it feared losing US support this continent relies on for its security and defence'. And now there's Greenland and Denmark - where EU countries are deeply divided in their attitudes towards the Trump administration and therefore to what extent they might stick their neck out for Copenhagen. Does risk this situation breaking the EU as well as being an existential dilemma for Nato? Trump has never been a big fan of the transatlantic alliance. Consider the irony at play at the France meeting. Multiple European national and other leaders, including of Nato and the EU, are trying to engage the Trump administration in safeguarding the future sovereignty of a European country (Ukraine) against the aggressive territorial ambitions of an outside force (Russia), just after the US has swooped into sovereign Venezuela militarily, taking its president into custody, while also continuing to actively threaten the sovereignty of another European nation (Denmark). On Sunday US President Trump insisted that the island is "so strategic right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.' Greenland is the world's largest island - it's six times the size of Germany. Under a bilateral agreement, the US has a military base already on Greenland - established at the beginning of the Cold War. It has reduced the number of personnel there from around 10,000 during peak Cold War operations to around 200 and the US has long been accused of taking its eye off Arctic Security, until now. Nato treaties do not make a distinction between an attack on an ally from outside countries or from another Nato ally but there is an understanding that the alliance's Article 5 - nicknamed its all for one and one for all clause - isn't applicable to one Nato country attacking another. Take, for example, strife between member states Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. The worst violence was in 1974 when Turkey invaded. Nato did not intervene but its most powerful member the US was able to help mediate. Nato insiders say, right now, even in meeting behind closed doors European member states of the alliance can hardly bring themselves to contemplate what could happen if Washington were to move in on Greenland militarily. (Source: BBC - United Kingdom)
Tuesday 06 January 2026 15:21 GMT Statement by Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark, President Macron of France, Chancellor Merz of Germany, Prime Minister Meloni of Italy, Prime Minister Tusk of Poland, Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain and Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom on Greenland. "Arctic security remains a key priority for Europe and it is critical for international and transatlantic security. “NATO has made clear that the Arctic region is a priority and European Allies are stepping up. We and many other Allies have increased our presence, activities and investments, to keep the Arctic safe and to deter adversaries. The Kingdom of Denmark – including Greenland – is part of NATO. “Security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them. “The United States is an essential partner in this endeavour, as a NATO ally and through the defence agreement between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States of 1951. “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, said yesterday afternoon that Greenland should be part of the United States in spite of a warning by Frederiksen that a U.S. takeover of Greenland would amount to the end of NATO. “The president has been clear for months now that the United States should be the nation that has Greenland as part of our overall security apparatus,” Miller said during an interview with CNN. (Source: Independent - United Kingdom)
European Commission
Jan 7, 2026 - 14:08 German MEP De Masi filed a lawsuit against the European Commission before the EU’s General Court, accusing President der Leyen of failing to properly disclose contacts with defence industry representatives. It argues that der Leyen violated her obligation, stipulated in EU treaties, to answer inquiries from Parliament. The co-chair of the left-populist BSW party argued that der Leyen only partially and belatedly answered his formal request for information about meetings, calls, emails and other communications with arms industry officials since the 2024 European elections. De Masi said that the Commission chief failed to elaborate on whether she had any additional contacts with defence industry representatives beyond those officially disclosed. The Commission president cited only a small number of meetings – including a ’strategic dialogue’ with defence firms and an industry dinner – and otherwise referred vaguely to transparency registers, press releases and social media, while omitting information on calls, emails and other correspondence that was explicitly requested. Der Leyen has previously been found liable for withholding information. Whilst serving as German defence minister, der Leyen was accused of mismanaging millions of euros in public funds in awarding contracts to private consultants. In May, the EU General Court also found that the European Commission had wrongly dismissed a request by The New York Times to access texts between the president and the Pfizer CEO during the pandemic. ’From the Bundeswehr’s procurement scandal to the Pfizer affair, Ms der Leyen has repeatedly been implicated in mismanagement and the deletion of files, De Masi wrote in a press release. The complaint was filed before Christmas last year but was first reported by the German news agency dpa today. (Source: Euractiv - headquarters Brussels, Belgium)
Russia
21:08, Wed, Jan 7, 2026 UK forces supported today the seizure carried out by US special forces of the Russian-flagged oil tanker Marinera. The Marinera has been under scrutiny since last month, when the US Coast Guard attempted to board it in the Caribbean after obtaining a warrant over alleged violations of US sanctions and claims that the ship had transported Iranian oil. The operation failed when the vessel suddenly changed course, changed its name, and reflagged itself from Guyana to Russia. Its move toward Europe has been was by the deployment of roughly 10 US transport aircraft and helicopters before it was boarded. ’UK Armed Forces provided pre-planned operational support, including basing, to U.S. military assets interdicting the Bella 1 in the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap following a U.S. request for assistance. ’RFA Tideforce provided support for U.S. forces pursuing and interdicting the Bella 1, while the RAF provided surveillance support from the air’. (Source: Express - United Kingdom)
January 7, 2026 The deployment of Oreshnik hypersonic missile systems to Belarus - the likely front line of a NATO-Russia conflict - was confirmed last month by Belarusian President Lukashenko, a longtime ally and personal friend of Russian President Putin. These missiles have been officially placed on combat duty. Belarus not only neighbors Russia, but shares a border with embattled Ukraine as well. Is Moscow planning to use them at some near-future point as part of a new round of offensives aimed at breaking the back of Ukraine’s resistance? Opening an offensive with hypersonic weapons fired from Belarus would be devastating to the beleaguered defenders of Ukraine - especially since there are no known defenses against them - the Oreshnik missile supposedly travels at Mach 10, making it all but impossible to intercept with existing air defenses. But European NATO members such as Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia - all are near to Belarus’ borders. Moscow is attempting to send a strong signal of renewed deterrence to the Europeans. Oreshniks have an estimated range of up to 5,500 kilometers. This is on top of Moscow’s conventional nuclear weapons capability. Researchers Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California along with Eveleth of the CAN research and analysis organization based in Virginia told Reuters that “they were 90 percent certain that mobile Oreshnik launchers would be stationed at the former airbase near Krichev, some 307 km east of the Belarus capital of Minsk, and 478 km southwest of Moscow.” The movement of these systems nearer to Ukraine and the rest of NATO Europe is a response to more provocative actions taken by NATO. As 2025 closed out, the United States Army announced they would be stationing their own intermediate-range hypersonic weapons system, known as Dark Eagle. The Army’s Dark Eagle platform is largely untested and is still very much an experimental system. The Russians, on the other hand, have had access to the Oreshnik for years and they have perfected this system. Moscow is committed to restoring deterrence. If the Americans are planning to place the Dark Eagle system in Germany, nearer to Russian borders, at some point this year, Moscow was going to preempt that move by placing their more advanced - and numerous - Oreshniks in Belarus. Another development: The 2010 New START Treaty, negotiated by Putin and former US President Obama, expires this year. Once that treaty is gone, there will be no further strategic arms limitation agreement existing between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. So, the deployment of the Oreshnik gives the Kremlin added leverage. It’s the product of careful strategy. (Source: The National Interest - U.S.)
by Weichert
.6 1 7 16:14

