Energy has become one of the clearest forms of strategic global power. It sits at the intersection of economics, security, and politics, and it moves faster than armies ever could.
States that control energy production, transit routes, and pricing shape the behavior of others without open confrontation. Pipelines, LNG terminals, shipping lanes, and long term supply contracts now function as instruments of influence.
When energy flows are stable, politics remains calm. When they are threatened, governments wobble.
Europe’s recent experience makes this plain. Military alliances and diplomatic statements offered little protection once energy supply tightened. What mattered was who could deliver gas in winter, at scale, and on short notice. The supplier gained leverage not through force, but through necessity.
The global order is shifting from visible force to invisible dependence. Energy sits at the center of that shift. Those who manage it strategically will shape alliances and outcomes. Those who treat it as a simple commodity will discover, too late, that it was leverage all along.
The idea that the United States could take control of Greenland without firing a single shot sounds exaggerated at first. Look closer at Europe’s current energy position, however, and the balance of power becomes clearer. Modern influence is often exercised through logistics, contracts, and dependency rather than tanks and troops.
The destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines marked a turning point in Europe’s energy security. Before the sabotage, Russian pipeline gas formed a central pillar of Europe’s supply. Afterward, Europe shifted rapidly toward liquefied natural gas, with the United States becoming the dominant supplier. Recent figures show that roughly 65 to 70 percent of Europe’s LNG imports now come from the US. This is not a marginal dependency. It is structural.
Europe’s internal gas distribution system is already stretched. Key hubs, including those supplying Brussels and surrounding markets, are operating close to full capacity. At the same time, winter temperatures across much of Europe regularly fall below zero, sharply increasing demand for heating. In such conditions, even small disruptions in supply can have outsized social and political consequences.
Alternatives are limited. Qatar is often mentioned as the obvious substitute, but most of its LNG output is locked into long term contracts with China, Japan, and South Korea. Diverting supplies to Europe would expose Qatar to contractual breaches and financial penalties. Spot market volumes alone are insufficient to replace US shipments at scale.
Returning to Russian gas is politically fraught and practically difficult. Relations between Russia and many European states are at their lowest point in decades. Even if political barriers were removed, damaged infrastructure presents another obstacle. The Nord Stream system cannot be restored overnight. Repairs would take time, leaving Europe exposed during the coldest months.
In this context, energy becomes leverage. If a US president were to issue an executive order restricting LNG exports to Europe, the effects would be immediate. Storage levels would drop, prices would spike, and political pressure inside European capitals would intensify within days. The African proverb captures the logic neatly. The hand that feeds you is not easily challenged.
This is where Greenland enters the picture. Greenland’s strategic value lies in its location, its role in Arctic security, and its untapped mineral resources. The United States already maintains a military presence there and views the island as critical to its northern defense architecture. When a partner is economically and energetically dependent, resistance to strategic demands weakens. Influence does not require annexation or invasion. It operates through alignment, consent, and the quiet narrowing of options.
The lesson extends beyond Europe. Africa, rich in energy, minerals, and strategic geography, holds similar latent power over external partners. Yet leverage only matters when it is recognized and used deliberately. Without coordination, long term planning, and leaders willing to think in strategic terms, structural advantages remain dormant.
Power in the modern world is rarely announced. It is embedded in supply chains, contracts, and winter temperatures. Those who control the essentials shape the choices of others, often without firing a single shot.
Energy power is also flexible. It can be applied quietly, adjusted gradually, or used as a signal rather than a weapon. A delayed shipment, a regulatory change, or a revised contract clause can achieve outcomes that once required coercion. This is why energy policy is no longer just economic planning. It is national security strategy.
For resource rich regions, especially Africa, this reality carries both opportunity and risk. Energy wealth alone does not create power. Power comes from coordination, infrastructure, storage capacity, and the ability to say no without self-harm. Countries that export raw energy without control over processing, transport, or pricing remain vulnerable despite abundance.
By Bright Kwashie Dzokoto
