Hands Off Greenland: Why a Distant Crisis Matters for UK Civil Society

Greenland has suddenly become a global flashpoint, raising questions about who controls land, resources, and people’s futures. This isn’t just a foreign‑policy story; it has real lessons for those working in civil spaces in the UK and for anyone thinking about civil liberties and sovereignty.

What is going on in Greenland?

In late 2025 and early 2026, US President Donald Trump talked openly about the US taking over Greenland, even though the US already has military bases there through existing defence agreements. Danish and Greenlandic leaders pushed back firmly and stated that Greenland remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own self‑government.

These comments sparked huge “Hands off Greenland” protests in Greenland and Denmark, with people marching under slogans like “Greenland is not for sale.” The immediate crisis has cooled after the US toned down its threats, but the episode has exposed real tensions inside NATO and between the US and Europe.

Why does Greenland matter globally?

Geographically, Greenland is in a crucial position between North America and Europe, controlling important sea and air routes. As Arctic ice melts and new shipping routes and resources open up, big powers like the US, Russia and China see Greenland as strategically and economically important.

Security experts in Europe now argue that Greenland can no longer be ignored in European and NATO planning. Some warn that if any country tried to grab Greenland or force a change in its status, it would damage trust inside NATO and could weaken the whole alliance.

What does this mean for the UK?

For the UK government, Greenland is a test of its commitments in the Arctic and North Atlantic, as well as its relationship with both the US and European partners. The UK has supported Denmark and Greenland’s right to decide their own future, while still relying on the US for wider security in the region.

That stance already has consequences. Trump has threatened the UK with tariffs for defending Greenland, signalling a willingness to use economic pressure against allies that do not fall into line. At the same time, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been keen to keep relations warm not only with Washington but also with Beijing, as shown by his recent visit to China, raising questions about how far the UK might go to appease powerful partners.

But Greenland is not the only place where the power of large states over smaller or weaker ones is on display. The long‑running crisis in Venezuela – with contested governments, sweeping sanctions and open talk of regime change – shows a different version of the same pattern: powerful countries deciding what “acceptable” sovereignty looks like elsewhere, and ordinary people carrying the cost. 

For UK civil society, looking at Greenland and Venezuela together underlines that economic pressure, security deals and diplomatic recognition are all used to shape other peoples’ futures, often with very limited democratic consent – and that our own government is frequently caught between defending rights and aligning with the interests of major allies.

The UK also sits on the key defence corridor often called the Greenland–Iceland–UK (GIUK) gap, which is important for tracking ships and submarines. Any long‑term instability around Greenland could affect UK defence plans, routes for energy and trade, and communication systems that pass through or near the Arctic.

Civil space and sovereignty

The protests show how quickly people move into action when they feel decisions about their land and lives are being made over their heads. They also show how smaller and Indigenous‑majority communities can push back by organising, telling their own story and demanding a say in their future. The fact that they have to have these conversations in 2026 is still alarming.

At home, we have already seen Labour make sharp moves to the right on policing and public order, and introduce new restrictions on protest that particularly affect actions about foreign affairs and international solidarity. When foreign policy is tied to trade deals and security guarantees, there is a real danger that civic sovereignty – our ability to speak out and organise on these issues – is sacrificed to keep major powers on side.

But there is a risk that rising military tensions in the Arctic will lead governments to close down civic space, increase surveillance and treat protest as a security problem. For those working on democracy, racial justice and community rights, Greenland highlights how territorial sovereignty (who owns the land) and civic sovereignty (people’s right to speak, organise and protest) are closely linked.

Why people working in the UK civil spaces should care?

For UK charities, social enterprises and community groups, Greenland is a reminder that global politics shape the environment we work in – from the cost of living and migration to defence spending and public attitudes.

There is also a solidarity angle. Greenlandic activists are trying to protect their home, environment and culture from being treated as a bargaining chip by bigger powers. For UK organisations already challenging racism, colonial legacies and restrictions on protest, connecting with struggles like those in Greenland is part of building a global civil society that can resist threats to both land and civic freedoms.