When US President Donald Trump escalated the Greenland crisis in early January by insisting on American ownership of the island and refusing to rule out military force, Denmark did not face the pressure alone. Nordic and Baltic capitals moved quickly to close ranks, offering political backing and diplomatic coordination.
This rapid response was not improvised. It reflected how, in just a few years, the Nordic-Baltic Eight (NB8)—Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—has evolved into one of Europe’s most credible and action-oriented security groupings.
In a European security environment crowded with declarations but thin on delivery, the NB8’s growing influence rests less on rhetoric than on follow-through. Unity matters, but credibility comes from execution—and this northern bloc has increasingly matched words with measurable action.
Why Has the NB8’s Influence Grown So Rapidly?
If 2024 was the year the Nordic-Baltic states became more visible in European security debates, and 2025 the year they emerged as Europe’s forward security hub, then 2026 is shaping up as the year their model faces sustained pressure.
The NB8’s influence has become structural rather than situational. Estonia’s assumption of the rotating NB8 chairmanship at the start of the year underscores this shift. The agenda focuses on deeper coordination and raising the group’s international profile—signaling that leadership continuity now comes from shared strategic priorities, not from any single crisis or national government.
Coordination rotates, but intent does not. Over time, the NB8 has developed habits of cooperation that allow it to move faster and with fewer internal veto points than larger European formats.
Why Does Ukraine Remain the Core Test of Nordic-Baltic Credibility?
Despite the attention around Greenland, Ukraine remains the anchor of the NB8’s security credibility. Throughout 2025, the group issued coordinated statements in February, August, September, and November, reinforcing a consistent position: rejecting imposed settlements, insisting borders cannot be changed by force, and committing to support Ukraine for as long as Russia refuses a genuine cease-fire.
But the real credibility comes from delivery. Nordic-Baltic states are not only meeting—or moving toward—NATO’s 5 percent of GDP defense spending benchmark, they are also among the largest military contributors to Ukraine relative to national income.
In November, all eight states jointly financed a $500 million package of US-sourced weapons and ammunition for Ukraine through NATO’s Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List. It was one of the largest coordinated European defense contributions of the year and a clear demonstration of how political alignment can translate into battlefield impact.
How Has Nordic-Baltic Support Shifted From Aid to Capability?
Over the course of 2025, the NB8 transitioned from drawing down existing stockpiles to building sustainable military capacity—often in direct cooperation with Ukraine.
Sweden’s work with Kyiv on future air capabilities and Denmark’s facilitation of Ukrainian defense manufacturing on Danish territory signal a strategic shift. Rather than short-term transfers, the focus is now on long-term war-fighting capacity that can endure beyond individual aid packages.
This industrial turn is reinforced by a dense web of Nordic-Baltic-led initiatives:
- Latvia spearheading Europe’s most dynamic drone procurement effort for Ukraine
- Lithuania anchoring multinational demining operations
- Estonia committing a fixed share of GDP to long-term military assistance
- A broader Nordic-Baltic framework training and equipping Ukrainian brigades alongside Poland
Together, these efforts reduce institutional friction and accelerate delivery—often outperforming larger European mechanisms burdened by complexity and political hesitation.
How Are the Nordic-Baltic States Reshaping Baltic Sea Security?
The Baltic Sea has become one of Europe’s most closely monitored maritime spaces, driven largely by Nordic-Baltic leadership. Continuous naval patrols, air surveillance, and protection of undersea infrastructure have turned deterrence from a political concept into an operational reality.
The launch of NATO’s Operation Baltic Sentry in early 2025, combined with Sweden’s first major NATO maritime deployments, marked a decisive shift. Northern defense is no longer aspirational—it is active.
Crucially, this effort extends beyond military hardware. Countering Russia’s shadow fleet, enforcing sanctions, coordinating maritime regulation, and addressing grey-zone activity are now treated as part of a single security ecosystem. The Nordic-Baltic approach recognizes that coercion at sea is as much a governance challenge as a military one.
What Message Does This Send to Moscow—and Beyond?
The signal to Moscow is deliberate and sustained: coordinated European action, when enforced over time, carries strategic weight. Beijing is also registering the lesson.
Deterrence today is less about dramatic gestures and more about endurance—the ability to maintain pressure, uphold sanctions, and support partners for years rather than months. In this context, the Nordic-Baltic states are no longer “small” actors. Taken together, their combined economic output rivals that of Europe’s largest powers, illustrating that scale in security is often a political choice.
The NB8 has acted on this insight, pooling resources into procurement, industrial planning, and long-term policy commitments that outlast electoral cycles.
What Are the Next Tests for Nordic-Baltic Leadership?
Two challenges will define the next phase.
First, Greenland will remain a test of allied norms and Nordic-Baltic cohesion. The crisis has exposed the limits of an older security logic—stay close to Washington and reassurance will follow. While that logic still matters, it can no longer be assumed. In response, Denmark and its Nordic-Baltic partners have worked to keep the issue within diplomatic and legal frameworks while reinforcing that Arctic security is a collective NATO responsibility.
Second, Ukraine will continue to serve as the decisive credibility test. Resisting premature settlements and sustaining military, industrial, and political support will require endurance, not just resolve.
Can the NB8 Avoid Becoming a Northern Island?
There is also a broader strategic risk. The NB8 is well-placed to strengthen the European pillar within NATO and bridge gaps between NATO and the EU—especially where defense production, sanctions enforcement, and security policy overlap.
But regional leadership must not turn into regional isolation. The inclusion of Poland and Germany in NB8 meetings reflects an awareness that deterrence requires wider networks. Long-term resilience depends on connecting northern leadership with continental cohesion and engaging partners beyond the region.
Why Does Europe’s Answer Increasingly Point North?
The deeper lesson across Greenland and Ukraine is that credibility is cumulative. It is built by acting early, speaking clearly, and converting solidarity into capability.
As Europe debates which coalitions can be relied upon under pressure in 2026, the answer increasingly points north—not because the Nordic-Baltic states are Europe’s largest powers, but because they consistently deliver on what they promise.
