Western alliance hangs in balance as Europe stiffens itself against Trump’s threats | Greenland
With a population of less than 57,000, Greenland may not seem like the region where the future of the relationship between Europe and the United States, the viability of NATO as the world’s most successful defense alliance, or even the fractured relations between Britain and Europe will be determined.
But battlefields are sometimes the product of chance rather than choice. It now appears that Donald Trump’s threat last week to impose 10% tariffs on eight NATO member countries in return for sending troops to support Greenland’s sovereignty may have been one of those eye-opening moments when Europe had no choice. Successive European leaders took to social media on Sunday to condemn Trump’s blackmail and intimidation, appearing as if they meant it.
Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of the Danish parliament’s defense committee, cannot claim to speak on behalf of Europe, but he captured the mood when he said: “Every insult, threat, tariff and lie we receive strengthens our resolve. The answer from Denmark and Greenland is unequivocal: we will never surrender Greenland.”
He added: “We’re praying that our true allies will be with us because we’re going to need it.”
There is every sign that all eight countries targeted by Trump so far will come to Denmark’s defense. Even leaders of other European countries close to Trump, such as Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, called Trump’s decision a mistake.
The eight have not yet threatened retaliation, such as imposing tariffs against the United States, in their joint statement, but they warned that the move could lead to a dangerous downturn and that a trade war should only be a matter of time.
French President Emmanuel Macron is exploring the activation of the EU’s anti-repression tool in talks with European leaders, the Elysee said. France will also raise the question of the validity of the EU-US tariff agreement signed in 2025.
Keir Starmer, whose fate is increasingly tied to Europe, has not yet said whether the UK will retaliate, but the benefits of Brexit are quickly evaporating. The trade agreement reached with much fanfare with the United States last fall has not yet been signed. An indefinite postponement risks weakening his position within the Labor Party. He dismissed advocates of Britain joining the EU customs union, such as Health Secretary Wes Streeting, saying it would be impossible because it would undermine Britain’s trade deal with the US. In the absence of any trade agreement and the imposition of additional 10% blanket tariffs on imports from the UK, this argument looks even more outdated.
Moreover, Churchill’s broader and enduring choice between the offshore values represented for the UK by the US and those of Europe dealt another blow to the offshore issue. When Bronwen Maddox, director of Chatham House, the voice of the UK foreign policy elite, announced the end of the Western alliance last week, we can be sure that similar views were expressed privately in the Foreign Office.
These are difficult times for those who, like national security adviser Jonathan Powell, have made it an article of faith that UK relations are based on public tranquility and private influence.
But for months European leaders, particularly Keir Starmer’s entourage, had been hoping that Trump’s threat to invade Greenland was either a wacky fantasy to be left in his closet of empty threats or could be appeased with a compromise such as giving the US military greater access and more bases, as allowed under existing defense agreements such as the 1951 Greenland Defense Treaty. Denmark’s political leadership went to the White House last week with a version of this proposal, but to no avail. Trump apparently has no interest in sovereign US bases in Greenland. He wants ownership.
Since nothing is unreasonable anymore, the risk of a military conflict between Europe and the USA is not too small. “If the United States decides to launch a military attack on another NATO country, everything stops,” Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen said on January 5. “This includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security.”
Speaking on the BBC’s Broadcasting House radio programme, former UK permanent secretary Simon McDonald agrees. “When one ally becomes militarily hostile to another, there is no going back, it is the end of the alliance. The clearest beneficiaries of this are President Putin and Xi.”
Closing US access to NATO bases in Europe becomes the ultimate goal. But since U.S. pursuit of Greenland is predicated on the need to monitor and counter Russian and Chinese threats in the Arctic, losing cooperation from Scandinavia, Iceland, and the United Kingdom would not ultimately serve U.S. national interests; This is a point the US military would undoubtedly make to its commander in chief.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t quixotic sounds. The 1917 purchase of the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) could be a precedent, McDonald said. “Buying territory is standard diplomatic procedure, and it seems to me that this is the way forward.” But his voice is a lonely one, in part because it sets a disastrous precedent.
According to Trump, everything should be for sale, including Greenland and a seat on the “peace board,” his version of the U.N. Security Council. Not only the right to power but also wealth, regardless of how it is acquired, equals legitimacy.
For Europe, shaped by a different set of values, this would be tantamount to signing its own death warrant.
