The Nordic Reaction to America’s Arctic Posture

Recently, the Nordic countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland—have faced a series of challenges stemming from U.S. policies under President Donald Trump. These include attempts to acquire Greenland, broad tariff impositions, and a perceived wavering of U.S. commitment to NATO. This commentary examines how these Nordic nations have responded to these pressures, highlighting the implications for regional dynamics and transatlantic relations.​

Greenland and Denmark: Resisting U.S. Territorial Aspirations

President Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland has been met with firm resistance from both Greenlandic and Danish leaders. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, during her visit to Greenland, unequivocally stated, “You cannot annex another country,” emphasizing the inviolability of Greenland’s status . 

Greenland has proactively managed its relationship with the U.S. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen expressed the desire to continue maintaining Denmark as Greenland’s closest partner until the island reaches full sovereignty. This approach indicates Greenland’s intention to chart its course towards independence carefully, resisting any form of external coercion. Moreover, the formation of a broad political coalition in Greenland to counter perceived U.S. encroachment underscores the island’s unified stance. The political discourse within Greenland suggests that its leadership remains steadfast in asserting its autonomy, particularly against the backdrop of potential U.S. territorial aspirations.

Norway: Balancing Security Concerns with Diplomatic Relations

Norway’s Arctic strategic position and proximity to Russia make it particularly sensitive to U.S. policy shifts. Norway has traditionally been a staunch ally of the United States, and its increased military cooperation with the U.S.—which includes hosting American military assets—has been viewed with concern by Russia, which perceives such moves as part of NATO’s growing encroachment. While Norway values its alliance with the U.S., it has had to carefully manage its relationship with Russia to avoid escalating regional tensions, especially given the delicate security balance in the Arctic.

In addition to security concerns, Norway has also been significantly impacted by the economic fallout from U.S. tariff policies. Norwegian Trade Minister Cecilie Myrseth criticized Trump’s tariffs, describing them as “bad for the world economy” and “critical for Norway.” She noted that Norway imports a substantial amount from the U.S., and as such, the tariffs place a considerable strain on its economy.

The effects have been far-reaching, even affecting territories like Jan Mayen, a remote Arctic island under Norwegian sovereignty. Despite its minimal economic activity, Jan Mayen was subjected to these tariffs, a move that has been seen by Norwegian officials as both perplexing and indicative of the indiscriminate nature of the U.S. tariff policies. This situation has prompted diplomatic dialogues between Norway and the U.S. to address these concerns and seek a more tailored approach.   

Sweden and Finland: Navigating Economic and Security Implications

Though Sweden and Finland have not been directly targeted by territorial aspirations, they have nonetheless felt the ripple effects of U.S. policies, particularly regarding economic and security matters. Both nations are key players within the Nordic economic network and have been significantly affected by the broader economic implications of U.S. tariffs. Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen has strongly advocated for zero tariffs between Europe and the United States, warning that a global trade war could lead to a worldwide recession. Her comments align with a broader European Commission proposal aimed at reducing trade barriers and fostering more stable transatlantic economic relations.

In the security realm, Sweden and Finland’s NATO accession has enhanced regional defense integration. This development enables more integrated defense planning, allowing forces to be deployed, dispersed, and sustained across borders, and assets to be pooled among allies, potentially yielding significant gains in combat power and contributing to a more versatile and less vulnerable fighting force. ​Sweden and Finland’s NATO accession is not only a response to growing regional security concerns but also a reflection of the evolving geopolitical realities in the Arctic and Europe.

Iceland: NATO Commitment and EU Membership Interest

The perceived wavering of U.S. commitment to NATO has raised significant concerns in Reykjavik about the reliability of transatlantic security guarantees. As a country with no standing military forces, Iceland relies heavily on the security provided by NATO, and any perceived diminution of this commitment has led to increased uncertainty regarding its defense needs. In light of these concerns, Iceland has begun reassessing its defense policies and even considering the possibility of enhancing its military capabilities independently.

Public opinion in Iceland regarding European Union membership has historically fluctuated. However, recent data indicates a growing inclination towards joining the EU, with 44.3% of Icelanders now expressing support. This shift is largely attributed to increasing uncertainty about Iceland’s global position amidst a more volatile geopolitical climate. While past debates centered on economic and regulatory aspects, security concerns are now a significant factor, particularly fueled by Donald Trump’s repeated suggestions of acquiring Greenland, which have generated considerable anxiety about his aims in the North Atlantic and Arctic region.

 Collective Nordic Response: Emphasizing Unity and Sovereignty

Historically, the Nordic countries have placed a high value on regional cooperation and collective security. In the face of recent U.S. actions, there has been a renewed emphasis on Nordic unity. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, in particular, has called for Europe to stand together against external pressures, reflecting a broader sentiment among Nordic leaders that unity is essential to safeguarding regional stability and sovereignty.

This collective approach extends beyond security and into economic realms as well. In response to U.S. tariffs, the Nordic countries have begun exploring ways to bolster intra-regional trade and strengthen economic ties with other European nations. By diversifying their economic partnerships, they aim to reduce their dependency on external powers, particularly those whose policies may be unpredictable or potentially harmful.

Implications for Transatlantic Relations

The assertive policies of the United States under President Trump have complicated transatlantic relations, challenging traditional alliances and prompting Nordic countries to reconsider long-standing security arrangements. While the U.S. remains a key ally, recent actions have led Nordic leaders to pursue a more balanced approach—one that maintains alliance commitments while enhancing regional autonomy and resilience in the face of external pressures.

Rather than severing ties with the U.S., Nordic states are increasingly focused on preparing for a future in which self-reliance and regional cooperation play a greater role. This shift does not signal a break with traditional partners but reflects a pragmatic recalibration aimed at protecting Nordic interests in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

Conclusion

While the United States remains a central partner in defense and geopolitics, the Nordic countries are adapting to a more uncertain transatlantic landscape. In response to shifting U.S. priorities, especially under Trump, they are recalibrating their approach—strengthening regional cooperation, safeguarding autonomy, and preparing for a future where strategic resilience will be just as critical as traditional alliances. As U.S. leadership evolves and Arctic tensions intensify, the Nordic response will be an important space to watch in the broader reconfiguration of transatlantic and polar geopolitics.