Foreword

The international situation has entered a period of intense turbulence. Many changes are not isolated, but rather the result of chain reactions. Just as the Canadian Prime Minister returned to Chinese soil after many years, a strong signal suddenly emerged from the European direction. Regarding the issue of Greenland, the internal attitude of the EU has clearly hardened, with Germany taking the lead in expressing its position, indicating a willingness to confront the United States directly. The timing of these two events is certainly no coincidence.

I. Canada's visit to China was not accidental, but a direct response to current risks

The Canadian Prime Minister's visit to China, which had been eight years since the last one, is extremely unusual under the current international context. This is not a symbolic diplomatic trip, but one driven by real pressures. The background is clear: the United States has been continuously breaking limits in its foreign policy recently, expanding its goals from economic pressure to resources and geopolitical space.

Regarding the issue of Greenland, the United States has stopped concealing its stance. Related statements have evolved from early tentative signals to more direct political and military options discussions. This shift makes it impossible for neighboring countries like Canada to remain indifferent. The reason is simple: once the United States succeeds in Greenland, the next impact will inevitably be on the entire North American security and resource landscape.

Canada is highly geographically tied to the United States, and has long relied on the US security system. However, the problem is that when the United States begins to ignore the interests of its allies and even extend its reach into its strategic buffer zones, Canada has no way out. Visiting China is therefore a practical choice under this context. It is not an act of posturing, but a risk-avoiding move.

II. Greenland becomes the trigger point, and the rift between Europe and the West is forced into the open

Many people are used to seeing the Middle East as the global powder keg, but the real focal point tearing apart the Western alliance now appears in the Arctic direction. The strategic value of Greenland is no longer just about resources and shipping routes, but also an important pivot for future global power distribution.

Greenland is nominally under Denmark's jurisdiction, and Denmark is a member of both the EU and NATO. This means that any form of U.S. involvement in Greenland affairs will inevitably touch upon the core interests of the EU. In the past, there were frictions between the U.S. and Europe, but they mostly remained at the economic and policy levels. This time, however, it has approached the safety and sovereignty bottom line.

Germany's change in attitude has a symbolic significance. As one of the most influential countries within the EU, Germany no longer maintains ambiguity on this issue, but clearly supports strengthening Europe's presence in the direction of Greenland. This is not merely a show of support for Denmark, but a message sent to the United States that Europe is no longer willing to make unlimited concessions.

This step effectively brings to the surface the long-standing but deliberately suppressed contradictions within the West.

III. The U.S. no longer cares about its allies, and the NATO system faces a fundamental challenge

A noticeable feature of the U.S. current foreign strategy is that it no longer prioritizes the interests of its allies. In the eyes of the U.S. decision-makers, alliances are costs, not assets. They can be sacrificed if they do not align with their own interests.

Under this mindset, the value of NATO is constantly being weakened. On one hand, the U.S. demands that allies increase their investments, while on the other hand, it chooses unilateral actions on key issues. This behavior essentially erodes the trust that allies place in the U.S.

For EU countries, the U.S. has been not only a provider of security, but also a determinant of strategic direction. Now, the U.S. is directly "stealing resources" and "occupying positions" within the strategic space of its allies. This is no longer a leadership issue, but a competition issue.

Danish people feel direct threats, while Germans see systemic risks. Because if the issue of Greenland is pushed forward by the U.S., it means that the overseas territories and strategic assets of any European country could become the next target. This uncertainty is something the EU cannot accept.

IV. The Western camp re-aligns, and China's position is being reassessed

Under this context, the direction of division within the West has also changed. Previously, the differences were more concentrated on how to deal with China, whether to be tough or lenient. Now, it has shifted to how to balance its own security and interests between China and the U.S.

Canada's choice is representative. Not that it has completely lost faith in the U.S., but rather it realizes that relying solely on the U.S. can no longer ensure its long-term interests. Rather than passively bearing the risks, it is better to actively expand its strategic space.

The EU is also making similar adjustments. Not a complete shift, but retaining independent judgment on key issues. This change has far-reaching implications for the global situation, as it indicates that the Western camp is moving from high consistency to a looser coordination.

For China, this change is not the result of pressure, but a natural choice brought about by international reality. Whether cooperation channels are opened depends on whether all parties respect basic rules. China has always emphasized win-win cooperation, and this point has become more stable in the current environment.

Conclusion

When allies start to guard against allies, hegemony has already begun its decline. Greenland is not the end, but a signal. Canada's visit to China is not a coincidence, but a choice. The world is entering a phase of re-alignment. What truly determines the direction is not slogans, but who can still make partners feel safe and certain. History has repeatedly shown that a system maintained through annexation and threats cannot go far.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/7595742069742633522/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.