The seize of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, together with latest feedback from the White Home have made clear that US President Donald Trump’s ambition to take over Greenland must be taken very significantly. European governments are reportedly discussing contingency plans if he makes good on his threats.
A US navy assault on the territory of a pleasant European nation — successfully the top of the NATO alliance — nonetheless appears unlikely, although can’t be dominated out totally. Whereas there have been proposals to station extra troops in Greenland as a deterrent, for now, European governments appear to view that step as unnecessarily escalatory.
A political and financial marketing campaign to stress Europe into giving up Greenland appears extra probably. The most effective hope of stopping the US from going farther down this highway could also be simply how unpopular the thought is in Greenland itself and in the US.
Nobody is laughing about Greenland anymore.
President Donald Trump’s steadily expressed need for the US to take possession of the world’s largest island could as soon as have been handled as a lark, troll, or distraction, however following final week’s seize of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, it’s grow to be clear that Trump is more and more buying a style for navy motion and that he’s even much less constrained by worldwide norms than beforehand thought.
“We do want Greenland, completely,” Trump stated, shortly after the Maduro raid, describing it as “surrounded by Russian and Chinese language ships.” The White Home stated on Tuesday that Trumpand his senior advisers are discussing choices for the right way to take over the Danish territory and that navy power is “all the time an choice.”
Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, dismissed the concept there was something stopping the US from pursuing its imperialist visions within the far north, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper, “No person’s going to battle the US militarily over the way forward for Greenland. … We reside in a world, in the actual world, Jake, that’s ruled by power, that’s ruled by power, that’s ruled by energy.” (Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a softer line, saying no invasion was imminent and that the purpose is to buy Greenland. Neither Denmark nor Greenland have indicated any curiosity in promoting.)
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded to the threats by saying that Trump’s ambitions for the territory must be taken significantly and that “If the US had been to decide on to assault one other NATO nation, then the whole lot would come to an finish. The worldwide group as we all know it, democratic guidelines of the sport, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance — all of that will collapse if one NATO nation selected to assault one other.”
On Tuesday, the leaders of six European nations together with Greenland issued a joint assertion affirming the significance of territorial integrity and stating that “it’s for Denmark and Greenland and them solely, to resolve on issues regarding Denmark and Greenland.” The French authorities says it’s in communication with companions over plans to reply if Trump makes good on his threats.
Robust phrases, however can Europe again them up? If we take Trump at his phrase that he plans to take some motion on Greenland “in about two months,” what can Denmark and its European allies do earlier than then to dissuade him? And if he follows via on his threats, what prices are they prepared to pay to battle again?
Would the US actually get right into a taking pictures conflict over Greenland?
The thought of an precise US vs. Europe navy battle over Greenland nonetheless appears outlandish, even after what occurred in Venezuela, although European nations aren’t discounting it totally. A international outlook revealed by Denmark’s intelligence service in in December categorized the US, for the primary time, as a safety danger, writing that Washington “makes use of financial energy, together with within the type of threats of excessive tariffs, to implement its will and now not excludes the usage of navy power, even in opposition to allies.” The nation’s overseas ministry has arrange a “night time watch” to watch Trump’s actions and social media exercise posts whereas the remainder of the nation is sleeping.
“I completely suppose there’s the political will to guard Greenland.”
— Rachel Rizzo, senior fellow targeted on transatlantic safety on the Observer Analysis Basis
Early in 2025, when it first grew to become clear Trump wasn’t going to let the difficulty drop, the French authorities mentioned sending troops to Greenland as a deterrent, although the proposal hasn’t gone wherever since then. The consensus for now amongst European governments is {that a} navy build-up to counter the US would danger additional inflaming tensions with Trump whereas nonetheless in all probability not being sufficient to carry off a (nonetheless arduous to think about) US operation to grab the territory by power.
“For all the navy property that Europe has and that NATO has, the US nonetheless stays the spine of NATO, and I feel that that’s why that is additionally such an unprecedented dialog that we’re having,” stated Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow targeted on transatlantic safety on the India-based Observer Analysis Basis.
Trump has mocked Denmark’s latest strikes to bolster safety in Denmark by saying that they had added “yet another dogsled.” In truth, Copenhagen introduced a brand new $4.26 billion arctic safety package deal in November, together with two extra naval vessels and 16 F-35 fighter jets. Mockingly, that is the kind of spending Trump, who has lengthy accused NATO nations of skimping on their very own protection and free-riding on US safety ensures, has known as for, although till not too long ago the concept elevated spending would supply safety from the US would have appeared very unusual.
Even with a bulked-up navy, Denmark and allies might not be a match for the US in a traditional conflict. Danish commentators calling for extra troops to be despatched to Greenland acknowledge this may be principally a symbolic step. Nonetheless, it’s value noting that Denmark not solely fought alongside the US in Afghanistan — a main supply of frustration now that they’re being bullied by its authorities — however misplaced across the similar variety of troops per capita.. Trump and Miller’s dismissive feedback apart, this isn’t a rustic that lacks the desire to defend itself.
“I completely suppose there’s the political will to guard Greenland,” Rizzo stated.
Trump may threaten Greenland in different methods
If it’s nonetheless arduous to think about even Trump militarily invading a pleasant European NATO ally, it’s a lot simpler to think about him making use of political and financial stress to get what he desires. European officers interviewed in a latest Atlantic article sketched out a state of affairs through which Trump merely declares Greenland to be a US protectorate. He may then use varied types of leverage to stress Denmark and different European governments to just accept US management of Greenland as a fait accompli. This might embrace his most popular financial weapon, tariffs. He may additionally threaten to tug the US out of NATO —a state of affairs that appeared very potential throughout his first time period however that he has spoken much less about currently. Lastly, he may return to a different acquainted supply of leverage: threatening to withhold ongoing US weapons help and intelligence assist to Ukraine.
What can Europe do to forestall this? The primary alternative is prone to minimize a take care of the notoriously transactional president. It’s grow to be clear that Trump’s curiosity in Greenland isn’t just about leverage or stress — he sincerely desires the island, both as a result of he’s genuinely fearful about Chinese language and Russian actions within the Arctic or as a result of he’s merely involved in territorial enlargement as an finish unto itself. However may savvy diplomacy flip his obsession into a type of leverage? The query now dealing with European leaders, says Liana Repair, senior fellow for Europe on the Council on Overseas Relations, is “is there one thing that may give Donald Trump a win that doesn’t violate the sovereignty of Denmark?”
One cause Europeans are skeptical of Trump’s said concern concerning the island’s safety wants is that the US navy already has broad latitude via prior protection agreements to function within the territory. The Danish authorities has additionally made clear it’s open to an expanded US troop presence in Greenland and elevated US mining exercise, as long as it stays sovereign Danish territory, however this was apparently not sufficient for the Trump administration.
It’s potential there could also be an unrelated difficulty Europe may minimize a deal on in alternate for Trump backing off, equivalent to the Digital Companies Act, which is strongly opposed by US tech firms and has been harshly criticized by Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk, and others in Trump’s orbit.
Repair notes that “it’s a high-quality line to stroll, to not seem like appeasing” Trump. That is one case, she notes, the place “appeasing is prone to backfire.”
European governments may threaten to sanction US firms or dump US bonds, however on the finish of the day, notes Rizzo, “Europe doesn’t have that a lot leverage economically over the US,” which has already helped Trump in commerce talks this time period, and is probably going the rationale he feels emboldened to deal with Denmark this manner.
The most effective weapon the Europeans could have for resisting US stress could also be simply how unpopular an concept that is in all corners of the Atlantic. Danish rule is a fraught difficulty in Greenland and all of the island’s political events assist eventual independence, albeit on completely different timelines. However Ulrik Pram Gad, a senior researcher on the Danish Institute for Worldwide Research, famous that Trump’s brute-force strategy has offended Greenlanders as effectively, resulting in elevated coordination between Nuuk, the Greenlandic capital, and Copenhagen. The Greenland authorities has refused to interact in bilateral talks with the People with out Danish involvement, a possibility they could have jumped at beneath different circumstances.
Polls present US management of Greenland is deeply unpopular there. “It has been very troublesome for the US administration, for the MAGA universe, to inform tales about anybody in Greenland really desirous to be American,” Gad stated. A go to by second girl Usha Vance to Nuuk was scrapped in March amid stories of deliberate protests, although the administration blamed scheduling points. The truth that one notably vocal Greenlandic Trump superfan, stonemason Jørgen Boassen, has grow to be a quasi-celebrity who appears to be interviewed in practically each article concerning the subject, signifies that there’s in all probability not a large base of assist for US annexation.
The dearth of any in style base of native assist would make it troublesome for the US to tug off a model of the “little inexperienced males” operation Russia carried out in Crimea in 2014, which concerned Russian forces taking up the area whereas presenting it as a neighborhood rebellion in opposition to Ukrainian rule. Whether or not or not they had been really a majority, there not less than was a big quantity of native assist for Russian rule in Crimea. That’s not the case in Greenland.
Trump prefers fast and overwhelming victories in his overseas coverage actions — arresting Maduro, bombing Iran’s nuclear websites. Even when he may take over Greenland, and even when he doesn’t care about successfully destroying NATO, how a lot sense does it make for the US to rule long-term over a hostile inhabitants in a territory that polls present People overwhelmingly don’t even need? A YouGov survey launched this week reveals solely 8 % of People assist utilizing power to take Greenland and simply 28 % assist buying it.
Finish of the highway for the alliance?
All of that is going down in opposition to the backdrop of the conflict in Ukraine and ongoing efforts to achieve a ceasefire. Simply this week, even amid the rising Greenland tensions, France and the UK introduced a plan for future safety ensures for Ukraine that envisions the US taking part in a distinguished function in monitoring the ceasefire.
Would European governments actually be prepared to explode the transatlantic safety alliance over Greenland?
For all Trump’s bluster and shock tweets, Europeans have been pretty profitable at maintaining him onside over the previous yr in the case of NATO on the whole and persevering with materials assist for Ukraine particularly. That is probably one main cause why European governments have been reluctant to criticize Trump’s Greenland ambitions too strongly.
So the query is, would European governments actually be prepared to explode the transatlantic safety alliance over Greenland? The reply — notably from Denmark, as Frederiksen’s feedback this week indicated, is that by taking Greenland in opposition to their will, Trump would have blown it up anyway.
“Principally, all of the vital European nations perceive and agree that Europe will have to be unbiased from the US in the long term,” stated Gad, the Danish analyst. “The essential dynamic continues to be that we have to make this [alliance ] collapse so slowly that we don’t get in a whole lot of bother earlier than the method is over.”
In different phrases, policymakers in Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin, London, and elsewhere would little question favor the method of weaning themself off dependence on the US for his or her safety to occur on their very own timeline slightly than one dictated by Trump, notably with a serious conflict raging on their doorstep, however they could now not have that luxurious.
“Why on Earth would we need to make a take care of Donald Trump [over Greenland] when the expectation is that he gained’t hold it anyway?” Gad stated. The mistrust is prone to outlast this presidency.
“You elected the man twice; we are able to’t belief you,” Gad added.
