A Strategic Pattern: Greenland in the North, Albania in the South
The United States first attempted to purchase Greenland—a territory of immense strategic value in the Arctic. The European Union rejected the idea. Washington responded by raising tariffs, prompting the EU to suspend trade agreements on 22 January. The economic escalation between Brussels and Washington reached a new peak.
Only hours later, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner appeared in Albania, where they revived a major development project that had been dormant since 2025. The timing, so close to the EU’s decisions, is striking and raises questions about strategic coordination.
On the same day, Reuters reported that the Albanian parliament had voted to join Donald Trump’s newly created “Board of Peace.” This move ties Albania politically closer to Washington—precisely at a moment when the EU is freezing its relations with the United States.
The simultaneity of these three events is no coincidence. It shows how economic decisions, private investments, and political realignments can converge within a single day. For geopolitical analysis, this concentration of actions is a strong indicator of a coordinated strategic line from Washington—and of a new phase of American influence on European soil.
Indirect Influence: Europe Without EU Rules
European officials have recently warned that they do not want growing American influence on European territory—especially not in the form of direct territorial ambitions like the Greenland proposal. The EU rejects such moves because they undermine Europe’s security architecture and would effectively grant Washington new spheres of influence inside Europe.
While the northern strategy revolved around acquiring territory, the southern strategy focuses on a large‑scale development project in Albania—a country geographically in Europe but politically outside the EU. For geopolitical strategy, EU membership is irrelevant. In fact, it is easier for the United States to build influence in Albania or Kosovo precisely because they are not bound by EU rules. Washington is now exploiting this gap.
Donald Trump does not need to act directly. It is enough that his daughter invests through private ventures while partner states like Qatar simultaneously expand their economic and security cooperation with Albania. This combination of private investment and state partnerships generates political influence without requiring formal U.S. government intervention.
This indirect form of influence is politically effective and legally unproblematic because it operates through private actors rather than state treaties. With Sazan, Washington effectively secures a strategic point in the southern Mediterranean. The island sits on one of the most important maritime corridors linking the Adriatic, the Ionian Sea, and the Eastern Mediterranean—a region crucial for NATO operations, energy routes, and migration flows.
Qatar’s parallel investments in Albania, combined with its growing security cooperation with Washington, reinforce this impression. Even without formal confirmation of specific agreements, the increasing coordination suggests that both states are aligning their interests in the Mediterranean. In this context, the engagement in Albania appears as another building block in a broader geopolitical strategy.
Albania Between Growth and Alignment: Billions as a Geopolitical Instrument
The billions now flowing into Albania exceed anything the country has received from Europe in decades. For Prime Minister Edi Rama, this is a political triumph: economically, it creates jobs, modernizes infrastructure, and strengthens his domestic position. But geopolitically, this influx of money means far more than development.
Albania is being strengthened economically—but simultaneously realigned politically. Whoever invests at this scale sets the long‑term rules. And these rules are not coming from Brussels, but from Washington and its partner states. The United States can build influence in Albania without seeking approval from the EU—and the Albanian government’s political posture shows that this influence is welcome.
The “Board of Peace”: A Political Turn in Tirana—and a Signal to Europe
Prime Minister Edi Rama, who told Albanian media he preferred meeting Trump’s daughter over attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, described the parliament’s decision to join the “Board of Peace” as an “act of goodwill” and a “special honor.”
Only months ago, Rama presented himself as a reliable partner of the European Union. He supported Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s migration policy, offered Albanian territory for the external processing of asylum claims, and hosted Meloni in Tirana. The EU, in turn, signaled that Albania could join the Union in 2027—a historic promise Rama publicly welcomed.
But while the EU struggles with internal divisions and advances its enlargement policy only hesitantly, Albania is aligning itself more closely with Washington—even risking tensions with Brussels. Combined with the large‑scale development project on Sazan, a picture emerges that goes far beyond economic interests. Albania is geographically European territory, but not bound by EU rules. The United States can build influence here without European approval—and the Albanian government appears comfortable with that.
One Continent, Two Realities: Albania’s Structural Importance for Europe
Albania and Kosovo lie geographically in Europe, yet the European Union has treated them for years as if they were outside the continent. Not geographically—but politically. They are viewed as Europe’s periphery, not as equal partners. This divide between “Europe” as a political club and “Europe” as a geographic reality has created a structural inequality deeply embedded in the relationship.
Albania played a decisive role during the 2015–2016 refugee movements. While Europe focused on Greece, it was the entire Balkan route that shaped the flow toward Central Europe—and Albania was part of that chain. The country stabilized one of Europe’s most critical migration corridors without being politically recognized as a partner.
At the same time, Albania is rich in natural resources that have been exported for decades without generating domestic industrial value. The resources leave the country cheaply—the profits are made elsewhere. In 2024, the discovery of large quantities of liquid hydrogen added to Albania’s strategic relevance. And as with oil, resources are not discovered in one single moment but in successive deposits—as seen in the numerous puse nafte of the Patos‑Marinza oil field, one of the largest onshore reserves in Europe.
The American engagement in Albania is therefore not an isolated investment but part of a broader strategy that links economic, territorial, and security interests.
Albania’s Geopolitical Role in a Fragile World
For Europe, this development represents a loss of influence on its own continent. Albania is not an exception but a test case: if Europe does not integrate its periphery, it will become part of other powers’ strategies.
With tensions escalating across the Middle East and Iran entering a period of acute instability, European security briefings now warn of potential new refugee movements—echoes of the pressures Europe faced in 2015 and 2016. Should this occur, the Balkan route will again be decisive—and with it, Albania. Not out of political choice, but out of geographic necessity.
Albania sits at one of Europe’s most strategic intersections: between the EU and the Western Balkans, between the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, and between NATO structures and regions where other powers seek influence. This position makes the country a geopolitical hinge. Whoever invests here gains not only economic leverage but also security leverage.
Albania remains a central link in the security chain that stabilizes Europe—yet Europe seems to have forgotten this.
This analysis is directly connected to the question of why the global order of 1945 continues to produce today’s conflicts—a topic we examined in detail here.
A related analysis examines why societies keep returning to conflict.