Trump’s Double Geopolitical Threat: Ukraine and Greenland

August 3, 2026

The arrival of Donald Trump to the White House in January 2025 shook Europe’s political chessboard in many ways. But one of the main ones was the Republican candidate’s vow to bring the Ukraine war to an end. Although his notion of broker­ing a deal between Kyiv and Moscow in less than 24 hours has proven, as everyone expected, to be a typical exaggeration by the American president, the truth is that the sense of urgency and apparent lack of interest that such a claim encapsulated still lingers. The fear that Washington might push Ukraine toward a bad peace agreement remains one of the principal risks on the mid-term horizon.

“The fear that Washington might push Ukraine toward a bad peace agreement remains one of the principal risks on the mid-term horizon”

Since entering the Oval Office, Trump has undertaken several negotiation gambits, speaking by phone with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, and displaying a striking closeness with the leader of the invading power over the leader of the invaded country, Volodymyr Zelensky, whom he and J. D. Vance, the US vice president, launched an ambush on in Washington that has left European leaders with a peculiar post-traumatic stress that continues to turn any visit to the White House into a high-tension operation. Throughout 2025, Trump and his team floated several gambits, a meeting with Putin in Alaska was held, and the year closed with a 28-point plan drafted by Steve Witkoff with a strong pro-Russian tilt. It was, within the Ukraine framework, the moment of maximum tension between European partners and Washington.

Now the American negotiating drive seems to have faded. After leading several rounds of talks in early 2026, the US and Israel–led attack on Iran has redirected the White House’s attention to other issues. Although the evolution of the conflict with Iran remains highly volatile, as recent weeks have shown, there is concern in many European capitals that, if the situation in the Middle East stabilizes, Trump might turn his attention to other priorities.

As the Iran conflict loses, at least for now, some intensity, Europeans expect two main threats to reappear on the radar. The first is precisely the Ukraine question. Trump seems to have shifted his focus in recent months and has shown less willingness to defend Russia as it has become clear that the Russian push on the battlefield is losing steam.

The signals, for now, are not particularly negative. Trump appears to have rekindled his alignment with Zelensky and, in fact, at the Ankara summit (Turkey), the US administration took a significant step in favor of Ukraine by announcing that it would issue licenses to Ukrainians to build Patriot systems, which would be key against Russia. The US president even explained that this was an “escalation” to “end” the war. This is what Ukraine’s defenders in Washington have long argued: that Russia’s apparent lack of interest in negotiation should lead to an escalation of U.S. backing for Ukraine.

“Trump likes winners, and, at least for now, in Washington Ukraine is being presented as the winner”

But there is also a simpler reading: Trump likes winners, and, for the moment, Ukraine is being portrayed as the winner in Washington. The image of the conflict is, in any case, misleading: within NATO sources consulted, the narrative of one side or the other prevailing is basically just that—a narrative. The conflict is stalemated and there are no clear signs that either side can impose itself for now. What is clear is that, although Moscow continues to advance, it does so much more slowly today and at the cost of many more soldiers.

Nevertheless, the American president is an unstable, irascible individual and, in the past, has shown exceptional susceptibility to Putin’s influence and that of his inner circle. In the past two months, lines of communication between the two leaders have intensified again, with long calls repeated in late April, mid-June, and just before the NATO summit. The Kremlin expects Witkoff to travel again to Moscow alongside Jared Kushner in the coming weeks or months, as they did right after the controversial 28-point plan leaked.

The sudden death of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the leading pro-Ukraine voices in Trump’s orbit, adds more uncertainty to the coming months. The fear in Brussels is that Moscow will once again influence Trump and his team to mount a new attempt to pressure Ukraine into accepting a peace on terms favorable to Russia.

The Greenland Case

The other major threat concerns Greenland, a risk that some in the European capital have long considered undervalued. The crisis experienced at the start of 2026, when the Trump administration even left the door open to using force to control Greenland, a territory dependent on Denmark, provoked an unprecedented rift among transatlantic partners. Copenhagen deployed military assets on the island, as did other European partners, who were threatened by Trump with tariffs.

“There arose the conviction among many Union leaders that they should stand up to Trump and stop trying to avoid conflict at every turn”

The flare-up was contained in Davos (Switzerland), during the World Economic Forum meeting, with the involvement of Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General. Trump, resentful, faced the reality that European partners had drawn a red line around Greenland. From there emerged the conviction among many Union leaders that they should stand up to Trump and stop trying to avoid conflict at every turn. The U.S. president has not forgotten that affront.

The first thing Trump did upon arriving in July in Ankara (Turkey), where the NATO summit was held, was to again bring Greenland to the radar, linking it to the process of reviewing troop presence in Europe and threatening to withdraw all American forces on the continent if his demands regarding the Danish-dependent territory were not met.

Although the NATO summit ended up being a success in containing Trump and preventing an Alliance implosion, the meeting made clear that the U.S. president has not changed his mind about Greenland, so the crisis could reemerge in the coming months.

Natalie Foster

I’m a political writer focused on making complex issues clear, accessible, and worth engaging with. From local dynamics to national debates, I aim to connect facts with context so readers can form their own informed views. I believe strong journalism should challenge, question, and open space for thoughtful discussion rather than amplify noise.