Greenland and Ukraine point to Trump’s head-spinning unpredictability

The United Kingdom and its European neighbors simultaneously face two case studies in how the continent has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to tie the United States to its future.

First there is Ukraine, then there is Greenland.

And all this at a time when deep suspicions prevail in Washington about Europe: its importance, its outlook, and its willingness to throw its weight around to defend itself.

The futures of Ukraine and Greenland, which are simultaneously making headlines, are the latest example of President Trump’s fascinating, dazzling unpredictability.

Privately, senior figures in London exchange a knowing look as the White House’s frantic uncertainty emerges during the speech.

Every day is a rollercoaster, with little idea of ​​where tomorrow or next week might take them, us.

This week’s developments are particularly difficult to read because, from the outside, they point in different directions.

Seven European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, issued a joint press statement emphasizing, albeit in diplomatic language, their shared view that Washington’s plans for Greenland are not only absurd but counterproductive.

We are on the same side, that is the thrust of their message and it is a waste of your energy because Greenlanders will decide the future of Greenland.

But they also know they need to take President Trump seriously.

And then there is Ukraine. European diplomats believe they have persuaded America to be an important part of securing a long-term peace in Ukraine; This is something that Europe has long seen as a prerequisite for a sustainable solution for Kiev, but which Washington has long resisted.

Now, sources tell me, they are cautiously optimistic that the White House is involved: The presence of President Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner at the meeting in Paris known as the Coalition of the Willing was unprecedented and seen as a key indicator of a shift from Washington.

The talks, as well as the accompanying document, lay out, although not in detail, the expected role of America, most importantly the United Kingdom, and others.

The first component of what is described as “robust security guarantees for a solid and lasting peace in Ukraine” is a “US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism.”

This, I was told, would leverage America’s advanced capabilities in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, described in military circles as “ISR.” This means drones and satellites, among other things. In other words: advanced tools of modern warfare.

It is unclear what exactly America’s intervention might mean, especially if Ukraine is again targeted by Russia, but Ukrainian and European capitals see this latest development as an important step forward.

Of course, one big caveat remains: Can peace be achieved in the first place, and is Ukraine prepared to give up any of its territory? These are two big and yet unanswered questions.

There is also the possibility of the deployment of troops in Ukraine for the UK and others. It’s a deep commitment that provokes its own big, unanswered questions: How many and for how long? Can this maintain public support? So what consequences will it have for the military and defense budgets?

Make no mistake, this is a promise with implicit longevity: beyond this prime minister, beyond this government, beyond this American president.

This is what the reality of European security is expected to look like for years, decades to come.

“A secure Ukraine is a secure Europe, and a secure Europe is a secure United Kingdom,” one Whitehall official put it to me.

Expect this to be a key part of the message in the coming months.

In the longer term, the UK and its neighbors will consider how reliable or otherwise America will be: Is the Trump era a doomsday, or a beacon towards an ongoing, unpredictable future?

So what will the White House say about Greenland and Ukraine next week, next month, next year?