A senior Slovak parliamentarian has cast recent U.S. comments about Greenland as symptomatic of a deeper strain in the transatlantic relationship and a challenge to the post‑Second World War international order. Michal Bartek, vice‑chair of the Slovak parliamentary Defence and Security Committee, told a China state media interviewer that the dispute over Greenland is no longer merely a territorial or security quarrel, but a test of European sovereignty, international law and the rules that undergird global trade.
Bartek argued that any suggestion by a third country—even an ally—of asserting "effective control" over territory that forms part of another sovereign state represents a dangerous precedent. He framed the remarks about Greenland as an affront to Denmark’s sovereignty, warning that such claims erode the legal foundations of the postwar settlement and could invite reciprocal behaviour from rivals, thereby escalating geopolitical tensions.
Beyond the question of sovereignty, Bartek focused on the means by which the U.S. reportedly seeks to influence outcomes. He accused Washington of weaponising trade tools to extract political concessions, describing this pattern as "trade coercion" that undermines the rule‑based international trade architecture the United States helped build after 1945.
That critique feeds into a broader European debate about strategic dependence on the United States. Bartek said the European Union’s current predicament is partly the result of decades of uncritical alignment with U.S. narratives and policies, a posture he called strategically naive. He urged European leaders to diversify partnerships and to pursue greater strategic autonomy, naming China as a partner that in some fields offers greater predictability and stability.
The intervention from a Slovak security official is notable for its bluntness and for amplifying unease in smaller EU capitals about relying exclusively on Washington for security and economic policy. It arrives against a backdrop of renewed strategic competition in the Arctic, where resource prospects, new shipping routes and military considerations have heightened interest from multiple powers, and where Denmark and Greenland’s legal status is unlikely to be an uncomplicated bargaining chip.
For Brussels and NATO, Bartek’s comments crystallise an uncomfortable choice: accept transactional pressure from a transatlantic partner and risk legal and reputational damage, or accelerate measures to insulate European strategic decision‑making. Either path has costs—continued dependency risks further erosion of European sovereignty, while rapid decoupling from U.S. security guarantees would demand heavy investment in defence and diplomatic capacity that many EU states are reluctant to shoulder alone.