There is a persistent notion in Western debates that the US is withdrawing. The country, weary after decades of war and failed interventions, is now looking inward. When Greenland suddenly ends up high on Washington’s priority list, it is therefore often interpreted as yet another sign of a “retreat to the Western Hemisphere”. I believe that interpretation is dangerously naive.
Text: JE Lindblom, an expert on BRICS, BRI, and the multipolar world. He runs BRICS Swedish News, Belarus Direct, and Russian Post on Substack
On the contrary, there are many indications that we are seeing an accelerated American pursuit of global dominance, in which Greenland is not a symbol of isolation, but a key piece in a much larger geopolitical project aimed at Russia and China.
Greenland as a rear base for a new European war
The US strategy towards Russia has long been one of avoiding confrontation while maintaining constant pressure. The solution is proxy warfare, and Greenland fits perfectly into this.
Instead of being on the front line itself, the US is positioning itself to support a future expanded European proxy war from a distance in the Arctic. Europe is expected to do the fighting, pay the costs, and build up its military industry, while the US coordinates, arms, and controls the game from the sidelines.
This is being sold to European voters as a “rift” between the EU and the US, as if Europe now suddenly has to stand on its own two feet. In practice, it is more of a division of labour dictated from Washington: you deal with Russia, we focus on China, and the bill doesn’t end up in Washington.
The invisible war against China’s lifeline
At the same time, a much less visible war is being waged against China’s economy.
The US’s long-term plan has long been to be able to block China’s trade and energy supplies at sea, especially via strategic bottlenecks such as the Strait of Malacca. This has been openly discussed in US military doctrines for over a decade.
China’s response was the Belt and Road Initiative (launched in 2014), consisting of land-based trade routes that reduce dependence on shipping, and here the US’s countermeasure becomes clear: instead of open confrontation, proxies, instability, and military groups are used to sabotage the infrastructure.
The oil pipeline between Myanmar and China is regularly attacked. Chinese projects in Pakistan’s Baluchistan region are constantly subjected to violence. These are not isolated conflicts, but a systematic economic stranglehold, carried out behind the scenes.
Ukraine: A war with multiple targets
The war in Ukraine is often portrayed as an isolated European tragedy. In reality, it is also a tool directed eastward.
The goal is to overexert Russia, but equally important is to weaken Russia’s role as an energy supplier to China. If Moscow cannot deliver energy, China becomes much more vulnerable to a future blockade.
That is why we are seeing attacks on Russian energy facilities far from the front line. That is why Russian oil tankers are being attacked in the Mediterranean and off the coast of West Africa. These are operations that require intelligence, range, and coordination far beyond Ukraine’s own capabilities.
These are not side effects. They are central parts of the strategy.
Greenland and the Arctic – where everything comes together
When Russia and China develop the Northern Sea Route through the Arctic, they do so for one simple reason: to escape the US’s naval stranglehold, and that is precisely why Greenland is crucial.
With a military presence there, the US can control or shut down, even this last alternative trade route. This is not about defence in the traditional sense, but about control over global flows. When American politicians talk about “defending the Arctic,” what they really mean is being able to stop others from trading when it suits them.
Greenland is not a peripheral detail. It is the final piece of the puzzle in a global encirclement.
A more dangerous world than we want to admit
The US focus on Greenland is therefore not a sign of withdrawal. It is a sign that the game is getting tougher.
When all these moves are added together: Europe, Ukraine, the Arctic, trade routes, the picture that emerges is of a world where conflicts are no longer about individual countries, but about control of the system. The question is not whether this will lead to greater confrontations, but what form they will take and who will be expected to pay the price.
By JE Lindblom, an expert on BRICS, BRI, and the multipolar world. He runs BRICS Swedish News, Belarus Direct, and Russian Post on Substack
