Glen Duerr, Ph.D.

Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have returned to England with their children for an extended stay after more than six years living in California. While the family is not expected to resume official working roles within the royal family, the move places them again at the center of ongoing public interest in the British monarchy and its future. The return comes amid continued strain between the Sussexes and other members of the royal family, alongside Prince Harry’s expressed desire for reconciliation with his father, King Charles III. Their renewed presence in the United Kingdom raises questions about the monarchy’s public image, the role of nonworking royals and how personal relationships within the royal family may shape public perception in the months ahead.

As tensions escalate over the possibility of the United States seeking control of Greenland — including threats of annexation that have drawn international backlash — seasoned international relations expert Glen Duerr, Ph.D. offers critical context for journalists reporting on the diplomatic, legal, and geopolitical dimensions of this unfolding crisis. What's Happening In early 2026, high-level rhetoric from U.S. political figures has revived debates about Greenland’s status as a strategic territory. What began as discussions of acquisition has evolved into broad international concern over sovereignty, alliance cohesion, and Arctic security. Denmark and Greenland have reaffirmed their commitment to autonomy, while NATO allies and the European Union warn that any forceful move by the U.S. could undermine alliance unity and violate international norms — raising profound questions about territorial integrity, international law, and the politics of national interest. Dr. Glen Deurr's teaching and research interests include nationalism and secession, comparative politics, international relations theory, sports and politics, and Christianity and politics. View his profile here How Dr. Glen Duerr Can Help Journalists Cover This Story 1. Understanding Strategic National Interests Dr. Duerr’s expertise in international relations provides journalists with a framework to explain why Greenland has become such a focal point for U.S., European, and Arctic security policy — from its strategic location to its role in broader defense calculations. 2. Explaining Nationalism, Sovereignty & Self-Determination His research on nationalism and secession is especially relevant as Greenlanders and Danish authorities assert self-determination and reject external control, a central narrative in the current debate. 3. Contextualizing International Norms & Legal Constraints As commentators and policymakers discuss potential annexation, treaty obligations, and alliance commitments, Dr. Duerr can unpack how international law, treaties (such as NATO agreements), and norms against territorial conquest shape policy choices and diplomatic responses. 4. Making Sense of Geopolitical Fallout With European leaders labeling aggressive claims as a form of “new colonialism” and threatening economic countermeasures, Dr. Duerr can help journalists interpret how Greenland could become a flashpoint affecting transatlantic relations, alliance politics, and global perceptions of U.S. foreign policy. About Glen Duerr, Ph.D. Dr. Glen Duerr is a Professor of International Studies at Cedarville University with deep expertise in international relations theory, nationalism, secession, and comparative politics. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and Government and is widely available to speak with media on geopolitics, sovereignty disputes, and the intersection of national interest and international order. Why This Matters The evolving crisis over Greenland is not merely a diplomatic dispute — it touches on fundamental questions of sovereignty, global strategic balance, alliance credibility, and international legal norms. Dr. Duerr is positioned to help journalists go beyond headlines, offering analysis that clarifies motivations, stakes, and implications for audiences tracking one of the most talked-about international issues of 2026.

As negotiations around the war in Ukraine continue to dominate global headlines, a newly surfaced 28-point peace proposal associated with former U.S. President Donald Trump has triggered intense debate across NATO capitals, Kyiv, and Moscow. The document — described in reporting by Reuters, Axios, Sky News, Al Jazeera and other outlets — outlines a framework aimed at ending the conflict but includes provisions that many analysts say could significantly reshape Europe’s security landscape. A Plan Built Around Ceasefire, Guarantees, and Reconstruction At its core, the plan calls for a formal ceasefire, a non-aggression pact between Russia, Ukraine, and European states, and a set of “security guarantees” meant to deter future conflict. Reporting indicates that Ukraine would receive assurances that any renewed Russian offensive would trigger a coordinated international response. The plan also proposes the creation of a major reconstruction program — potentially financed in part with frozen Russian assets — to rebuild infrastructure and modernize Ukraine’s economy. The proposal references pathways for deeper Ukrainian integration with Europe, including support for progressing toward EU membership and providing enhanced access to European markets. A large “Ukraine Development Fund” is also mentioned in multiple summaries of the plan. Provisions Driving the Most Global Pushback The most controversial elements relate to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and long-term security posture. Outlets such as Sky News and Al Jazeera report that the draft would recognize Russian control over Crimea and large parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — areas currently occupied by Russian forces. Ukraine would also be required to formally abandon NATO membership and cap its military at 600,000 personnel. Additional provisions include restrictions on the presence of foreign troops in Ukraine, phased lifting of sanctions on Russia, full amnesty for war-related actions, and the reintegration of Russia into global economic and political structures. These components have drawn sharp responses, particularly from European leaders who argue the plan could reward aggression and undermine international legal norms. Dr. Glen Duerr is a citizen of three countries. He was born in the United Kingdom, moved to Canada as a teenager, and then to the United States to obtain his Ph.D. His teaching and research interests include nationalism and secession, comparative politics, international relations theory, sports and politics, and Christianity and politics. View his profile. What Remains Unclear or Still Under Discussion Reporting from Reuters and AP notes that many sections of the plan remain undefined or are still in flux. The exact mechanism behind the proposed security guarantees is not detailed. Oversight of reconstruction funds, timelines for reintegration of Russia, and the legal handling of frozen assets also require further clarification. Some reporting suggests parts of the plan draw from a prior informal Russian “non-paper,” raising questions about the provenance and intent of specific provisions. Why the Proposal Matters With the war approaching four years of fighting, any formal proposal for ending hostilities carries significant geopolitical weight. Supporters of the plan frame it as a pragmatic attempt to halt loss of life and begin rebuilding. Critics argue it risks legitimizing territorial conquest and weakening the broader post-Cold-War security order. As governments evaluate the implications, journalists covering defense, diplomacy, and international law will find this evolving proposal central to understanding where U.S., European, Russian, and Ukrainian negotiators may — or may not — be willing to go next.