Greenland Is Not for Sale”: The Arctic, NATO, and Inuit Self-Determination

 

Analyst Pavel Devyatkin and activist–lawyer Aaju Peter speak on Democracy Now! about Greenland’s geopolitics, escalation risks, and Indigenous demands for sovereignty.

 

Interview details

Interviewers / Hosts (questions):

• Amy Goodman

• Juan González

 

Interviewees (answers):

• Pavel Devyatkin — analyst (Quincy Institute, The Arctic Institute)

• Aaju Peter — Greenlandic Inuit activist & lawyer (Twice Colonized)

 

Text format: Edited English rendition in Q&A format. Note: Where the original audio was unclear, this is marked [inaudible].

 

Introduction

In the interview that follows, analyst Pavel Devyatkin and Inuit activist/lawyer Aaju Peter discuss why Greenland has once again moved to the center of international politics, what that means for Euro-Atlantic security—and, above all, why the region’s Indigenous peoples insist that the future of their land cannot be decided without them.

The interview (Q&A)

 

Amy Goodman: We’re joined by two guests. Pavel Devyatkin, a researcher at the Quincy Institute and a senior fellow at The Arctic Institute. And from the Canadian city of Iqaluit, just south of the Arctic Circle, Aaju Peter, a Greenlandic Inuit activist and lawyer, also known from the documentary Twice Colonized.

Welcome to you both. Pavel, what is at stake right now, and how is Denmark responding—and, above all, how are the people of Greenland responding?

Pavel Devyatkin: Thank you, Amy. Trump says the United States needs Greenland for national security. But his threats, in reality, undermine security and threaten to unravel international law and institutions. In the effort to acquire Greenland, the U.S. is behaving like a rogue state, with a reckless foreign policy. There is no military threat to the United States coming from Greenland, nor is there any risk that Greenland will enter into military alliances with Russia or China. This is pure imperialism.

 

He claims that Russian and Chinese ships are along Greenland’s coasts and that Denmark cannot protect it. That is not true. He is conflating different parts of the Arctic. Russia and China do send ships into the Arctic, but not near Greenland—they are far away, in the Barents and Bering Seas.

 

And the U.S. already has a role in Greenland’s military security, due to the 1951 agreement with Denmark, which grants it control of a military base in the far north of the island. Often, when he speaks about Greenland, he “equates” it with the Pituffik base, arguing that the only way for the base to be secure is for the land beneath it to “belong” to the United States.

What we are seeing is a dangerous “might makes right” logic. They are betting on raw military power to seize territory from a sovereign country. And right now, people are openly discussing how Greenland could be acquired, without ruling out the use of military force.

 

This pressure is also tied to the island’s deposits of critical minerals. There is interest in extraction—for technology—and even in creating a so-called “libertarian city” in Greenland.

 

And timing matters: all of this is surfacing while the U.S. is facing serious domestic pressures (inflation, housing, infrastructure), and a large portion of public opinion does not want new military adventures or territorial grabs.

Juan González: I want to ask you about NATO. We’re watching European leaders try to manage a major shift in the U.S. posture on the war in Ukraine. Could a move to “snatch” Greenland blow up NATO relations between the U.S. and Europe?

Pavel Devyatkin: Yes, there are real risks for the Euro-Atlantic community. European leaders are facing an existential crisis, and many are not responding adequately. There are voices saying that if the U.S. were to attack another NATO country militarily, then “everything stops”—and with it the entire security framework that has existed since World War II is called into question.

 

Some commentators and political figures are showing resolve, saying Europe must be prepared for very hard choices. Others, however, appear weak: they avoid taking a stand or choose appeasement instead of defending international law.

Juan González: How is climate change altering Greenland’s geostrategic significance—especially in relation to global shipping routes?

 

Pavel Devyatkin: Greenland is the “canary in the coal mine.” The Arctic is the epicenter of the climate crisis. And instead of cooperation on climate, we’re seeing a push toward militarization.

 

Greenland’s ice is melting much faster compared to the 1990s. There are dangerous feedback mechanisms: as ice melts, darker surfaces are exposed that absorb more heat, accelerating warming. At the same time, the melt affects Atlantic currents that regulate climate, with potentially extreme consequences.

For Greenland’s Indigenous peoples, this means the traditional way of life is threatened: hunting, food security, population movement. And while all of this calls for cooperation and adaptation, extraction projects are being promoted. Finally, as the Arctic melts it opens new shipping routes—and instead of addressing this through international institutions, it is being framed through a logic of control and competition.

 

Amy Goodman: Aaju, what is the reaction in Greenland to the idea that the United States might “buy” or impose control over the island?

Aaju Peter: Thank you for having me, Amy. Greenland is not for sale. That’s what Greenland says. And Greenland wants its independence. Elected leaders and the public would like a discussion with Donald Trump: what exactly does he want? Greenland has cooperated with the United States since World War II and is open to communication—but not on terms of coercion.

 

Amy Goodman: The documentary you’re in is called Twice Colonized. What does that mean? And how do you bring an Inuit voice into today’s discussion about Greenland’s future?

 

Aaju Peter: Yes, it’s true. I was sent far away [inaudible]—and when I returned to Greenland, I moved to the Canadian Arctic. Indigenous people in Canada were colonized by Canada. And now we want our own sovereignty. We demand that decisions be made with us. You can’t simply “take” a people—or an Indigenous people—because you think you are superior. There has to be real discussion with Greenland’s Indigenous people and Canada’s Indigenous people.

 

Juan González: How has the Greenland–Denmark relationship evolved? And what still concerns you about that relationship?

 

Aaju Peter: I haven’t lived in Greenland since 1981. I’m speaking from what I hear. Greenlanders wanted to become independent, to have their own country. But with this pressure and these threats, the conversation about independence has “frozen” for a while.

 

Now Greenland wants to cooperate with NATO and NATO countries to confront these threats. You can’t threaten other NATO countries. That is not acceptable.

Amy Goodman: Pavel, one last comment: how is Russia responding to the U.S. operation in Venezuela—especially against the backdrop of international negotiations and Ukraine?

 

Pavel Devyatkin: Russia’s representative at the U.N. condemned the attack as a violation of international law and an act of state terrorism. Bloggers and veterans described it as a violation of sovereignty and “naked imperialism.”

 

At the same time, some appeared impressed: they say it should be studied operationally, that “notes should be taken.” And for Russia, practically speaking, it matters: Moscow had invested in supporting the Maduro regime (defense systems, advisers, ports). Within a few hours, that investment evaporated.

 

All of this makes any U.S.–Russia negotiation on Ukraine more difficult. How do you negotiate with a power that has just demonstrated it uses military force to topple governments or seize territory? And this opens risks in other domains too, such as arms control. The New START treaty—the last bilateral nuclear arms limitation agreement—is approaching its expiration, with the risk of a new arms race.

​

Interview source: Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman & Juan González)
Greek rendition / editing: Anansi Crew