American claims on Greenland: where should Poland stand?

In Poland, many fear that the country could find itself caught between two fires if the United States were to take concrete steps to acquire Greenland. The Polish press is covering at length what Poland’s course of action should be in such a situation.

Rzeczpospolita devotes extensive coverage to how official Poland should (or should not) respond to President Trump’s plans regarding Greenland. The dilemma is understandable: on the one hand, Poland is one of the United States’ closest European allies (as Denmark was until recently); on the other hand, due to its growing economic and political weight, Poland aspires to the status of a European middle power—an ambition that would be rendered illusory if it were to side against the EU on this issue. The situation is further complicated by the good and intensive Polish–Danish relationship.

Multifaceted Polish–U.S. cooperation

Relations between Poland and the United States have become one of the strongest strategic alliances in Europe in recent years, particularly in the fields of security and defense. In the shadow of Russian imperial ambitions, Poland—alongside its NATO membership—has long regarded the United States as its primary military guarantor, a perception only reinforced by the war in Ukraine. One of the most visible manifestations of this is the scale of the U.S. military presence, which now stands out even within the region.

At present, approximately 10,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Poland, partly on a permanent and partly on a rotational basis. This figure has been confirmed repeatedly by both the Polish government and the U.S. side. The presence forms part of the United States’ European deterrence policy and primarily serves the defense of NATO’s eastern flank.

A significant portion of the U.S. forces are deployed under Operation Atlantic Resolve, launched by the United States following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Within this framework, Poland is a key host country, as its geographical position provides a direct link between the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Western Europe.

The legal and institutional framework for the military presence is provided by the U.S.–Poland Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which allows for the development of permanent U.S. military infrastructure on Polish territory. As part of this, the United States operates forward command elements, logistics hubs, and training facilities in Poland.

Poland is not only a host but also an active financier of this cooperation: Warsaw allocates substantial sums to maintaining U.S. military infrastructure and carries out large-scale arms procurements from American manufacturers. In recent years, Poland has purchased F-35 fighter jets, Patriot air defense systems, and HIMARS rocket systems, with a total value of several tens of billions of dollars.

Poland’s defense spending as a share of GDP exceeds 4 percent, which is exceptionally high even among NATO member states. In Washington’s eyes, this makes Poland a reliable and predictable ally that contributes not only politically but also financially to collective defense.

Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Poland has become a key logistics hub for U.S. and NATO weapons deliveries. A significant portion of the military aid provided to Ukraine passes through Polish territory, further increasing Warsaw’s strategic importance for Washington.

Alongside military cooperation, economic and energy ties have also strengthened. Poland imports significant quantities of U.S. LNG, thereby reducing its dependence on Russian energy—an outcome that also aligns with the United States’ long-term strategic interests.

The prominent U.S. military presence in Poland is not a temporary crisis response but a durable strategic arrangement that has made Poland one of America’s key European allies on NATO’s eastern flank. Within this context, it is extremely difficult to articulate any criticism of U.S. claims regarding Greenland. That Poland has found itself—or may yet find itself—in a difficult decision-making position is also reflected in official reactions so far: Prime Minister Donald Tusk has made it clear on the one hand that Poland will not send troops to Greenland (which can be interpreted as a gesture toward Trump), while on the other hand stating that any “acquisition of a NATO member’s territory by another NATO member” would seriously undermine the transatlantic security order and that such a step would mean “the end of the world as we know it.”

The Danish connection

Poland and Denmark maintain friendly, stable diplomatic and economic relations. Both countries are members of the European Union and NATO, and therefore regularly cooperate on EU and transatlantic issues in both political and security-policy matters (for example, aligning positions on climate, migration, and defense policy, with no major conflicts or rivalry). Overall, the relationship is generally regarded as good within the international system.

The Polish community in Denmark is sizable: more than 48,600 first-generation Polish-born residents and an additional roughly 8,000 people of second- or third-generation Polish origin live in Denmark, making the Polish diaspora one of the largest foreign communities in the country. Polish residents are concentrated primarily in Copenhagen, Aarhus, Vejle, Odense, and Aalborg, though many live in other cities as well.

This community is an important part of the Danish labor market, particularly in urban jobs, construction, agriculture, and services. As Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, any Polish alignment with the United States over the island would inevitably lead to conflict with the Danish government—something the Tusk cabinet is visibly keen to avoid.