President Trump’s recent comments on Greenland have sparked questions regarding Arctic security, transatlantic relations, and NATO unity. European governments have sought to reaffirm alliance unity and respect for sovereignty, but the episode also highlights ongoing debates about Europe’s ability to respond effectively to strategic threats and assume greater security responsibilities.
In this Network Reflections, we invite members of the ELN Network to consider whether European allies’ reactions to Trump’s Greenland comments are coherent and credible, and what they reveal about Europe’s ability to act collectively within NATO and to assume a greater role in its own security.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Recent days have shown Europe, within its limitations, in its ragged way, handling its impossible US ally quite effectively…”
Sir Adam Thomson, UK
Former Permanent Representative to NATO; Senior Associate Fellow
Europeans are doing what they do best: muddling through on the basis of experience, not a plan.
Their responses may not be coherent in a pan-European sense: only seven leaders signed the statement of support for Denmark, with a few associating and others ducking the risk of Trumpian ire. Their responses may not be credible: the reported UK-German effort to mobilise NATO European forces for Greenland’s defence addresses a symptom of White House ambitions but probably not the cause, which appears to be a desire to “own” more US real estate.
But recent days have shown Europe, within its limitations, in its ragged way, handling its impossible US ally quite effectively: the necessary mix of coalition of the willing, firmness, servility, calm, agility, mobilisation of Congress, promises of money, and engagement with the White House.
None of this points directly to faster European acquisition of greater military capability. So, it doesn’t tell us much about Europe’s capacity to take greater responsibility for its own security. But Trump’s manifest sphere of influence mindset and dismissiveness of Europe will have given Europeans yet more incentive to get their act together. And it does suggest that at least the major European states are willing to contend for the NATO they still want to have.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“The Arctic is no longer a peripheral zone but a central stage for great power competition.”
Roderich Kiesewetter, Germany
CDU member of the German Bundestag
Dismissing President Trump’s remarks on Greenland as mere provocation would be a strategic error. His transactional approach ruthlessly exposes a vacuum that Europe has failed to fill. The Arctic is no longer a peripheral zone but a central stage for great power competition.
The reality is stark: Washington demands control over the ‘GIUK gap’ to secure the North Atlantic, while Beijing quietly buys influence. During my recent visit, I saw the challenges of resource extraction first hand, but also the alarming depth of China’s footprint—Beijing already absorbs 50 percent of Greenland’s fish exports. If Europe does not step up, we will force Nuuk into a dependency trap between Chinese capital and American security demands.
We must redefine ‘space’ not through imperial annexation, but through resilience and presence. The answer lies in ‘dual-use’ investment. Europe must fund the modernisation of Arctic ports and airports, serving both civilian trade and military logistical needs. This commitment should extend to joint exercises: Greenland’s challenging environment offers ideal conditions for specialised units, such as German mountain troops, to sharpen their skills in the High North. This is tangible burden-sharing that signals to Washington: We can secure the northern flank without compromising sovereignty.
Simultaneously, we must elevate the EU-Greenland partnership to a Strategic Union. Greenlanders need to see that their future with Europe offers more dignity, relevance and autonomy than becoming the 51st state. Deterrence requires relevance. Denmark is already increasing its military footprint; the EU must now match this with economic statecraft to prevent Greenland from becoming a mere pawn in a Sino-American endgame.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Discussions in NATO, where strengthening Greenlandic security can undoubtedly be agreed upon, risk now having to compete with American bilateral talks with the Danes and Greenlanders, exposing NATO to damaging charges of irrelevance…”
Pauline Neville-Jones, UK
Conservative Peer and former Minister for Security and Counter Terrorism
When he wants action from Europeans, Trump threatens to withdraw American power to get his way. When he wants Europeans to toe the line, he threatens to use American power to get his way. Greenland is in the second category. He claims he needs to own Greenland, which, geographically, is mostly in the Americas, to prevent Russia or China from becoming a neighbour in the Western hemisphere. He sees no need to produce evidence of current threats to Greenland’s security to support his power play.
Europeans have become accustomed to the style but are still taken by paralysing surprise at the substance of Trump’s moves. Instead of smartly pushing Greenland’s security into discussion within NATO, where a degree of topic control would be available to Europeans, some of them lost time by building an oral barricade behind Denmark’s sovereignty and the wishes of the Greenlanders, as if these closed the matter of the island’s security. They dared not simply tell Trump to get lost because some of them are on the hook for providing ground troops in Ukraine in the event of a cessation of fighting with Russia, and they fear – not without justification- that an annoyed Trump might revoke his shadowy but indispensable undertaking to provide supporting air cover.
Discussions in NATO, where strengthening Greenlandic security can undoubtedly be agreed upon, risk now having to compete with American bilateral talks with the Danes and Greenlanders, exposing NATO to damaging charges of irrelevance if solutions proposed there are brushed aside by Washington.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Europe runs the risk of facing a perilous moment of truth if its plan to enhance diplomatic and security presence in Greenland and increase economic cooperation is confronted with direct US military action.”
Pierre Vimont, France
Former Secretary-General of the European External Action Service (EEAS)
Contrary to the recent diplomatic tensions (bilateral trade, Ukraine, Venezuela…) that US diplomacy has imposed on Europe, Greenland strikes at the heart of the transatlantic alliance. As NATO’s most powerful member, America is setting a litmus test for this partnership with its stated intention to reach for ownership of Greenland against the will of its allies.
Confronted with that shock, Europe initially reacted in its usual denial mode, hoping that the issue would vanish by tacit agreement. Anger followed the US President’s reaffirmation that ownership, rather than economic or security cooperation, was his primary political goal.
Now, a combination of bargaining and fragile opposition is taking place among European allies. Europe runs the risk of facing a perilous moment of truth if its plan to enhance diplomatic and security presence in Greenland and increase economic cooperation is confronted with direct US military action. Additionally, the local population itself could bring more embarrassment if it were to opt democratically for independence and integration into American territory.
So far, for Europeans, damage limitation has been the name of the game in order to maintain US military protection in Europe while they bolster their own defence capacities. With Greenland, these delaying tactics may be finding their limits. Standing up to America in a direct confrontation between transatlantic allies would undoubtedly and durably damage NATO. Is Greenland worth the fight? One may doubt that many European nations are ready to put that to the test.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“If the United States were to attack Greenland or otherwise force it into submission, NATO as we know it would be dead.”
Evie Aspinall, UK
Director, British Foreign Policy Group
As President Trump has become more vocal in his ambitions to ‘acquire’ Greenland, the limits of Europe’s ability to respond coherently and swiftly to growing security challenges have been laid bare. While a coalition of European partners has been willing to reaffirm their commitment to Greenland, Denmark, and the rule of law, Europe’s response has been far from forthright. Few leaders have been willing to vocally condemn President Trump’s remarks, despite the clear threat they pose to European security, the global order or international law. Even fewer have been able to present a clear vision of what Europe should do in response.
Most concerning, although unsurprising, has been NATO’s relative silence. Indeed, the ongoing debate over the future of Greenland underscores the challenge NATO (and Europe) faces in being heavily reliant on the United States for security guarantees. This fundamentally limits what NATO is able to do, particularly in public, to push back against President Trump. It also raises critical questions about the future of NATO and its commitment to collective defence. If the United States were to attack Greenland or otherwise force it into submission, NATO as we know it would be dead. For Europe, then, Trump’s remarks about Greenland should serve as yet another wake-up call for the need to invest in national security and strategic autonomy in an increasingly turbulent global environment.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Precisely because the American military’s annexation of Greenland could further undermine NATO, there is an urgent need to prevent it through actions that can influence the American public and Congress.”
Mogens Lykketoft, Denmark
Former MP, Speaker and Minister; former President of the United Nations General Assembly
There is a rapidly growing understanding in Europe that we cannot – or only to a limited degree – rely on US support, and that we must hugely increase our defence spending to avoid a collapse of Ukraine, which commands the strongest army west of Moscow on the European continent
But we are not yet necessarily capable of confronting and pressing Russia to stop the war of aggression in Ukraine, and fighting over Greenland might threaten Trump’s willingness to put up the necessary security guarantee for Ukraine – and thus against Russian expansion in Europe.
However, the Kingdom of Denmark has welcomed the support from almost every NATO ally that Greenland’s future must be determined by the people of Greenland and within the Kingdom of Denmark.
Precisely because the American military’s annexation of Greenland could further undermine NATO, there is an urgent need to prevent it through actions that can influence the American public and Congress against such a move. One step in this direction could be to rapidly establish stronger ties between Greenland and the EU.
Even more important would be to receive further solidarity from NATO partners, expressing that they will never give diplomatic recognition to a military annexation, and to underline this by posting military representatives of NATO countries in Greenland. It is important that the US understands that NATO partners are present to register and protest any breach of the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark in Greenland.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“Europeans are finally beginning to assimilate reality: a year into the second Trump administration it is clear the US no longer sees them as true allies.”
Ilana Bet-El, Belgium
Senior Strategist, Solvo Partners; Senior Associate Fellow
Europeans are yet to utter a coherent response to President Trump’s repeated comments on the US’ apparent need to own Greenland. On 6 January, immediately after the US raid on Venezuela and Trump’s triumphalist comments on Greenland, seven European heads of state issued a joint statement noting that it “is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning” them. EU leaders issued the usual soft admonishments on the importance of respecting international law, other than Council President Antonio Costa, who noted Denmark and Greenland “have the full support and solidarity of the European Union.”
Denmark apparently does not want external comments that could spur further US moves, having itself issued a warning that any attempt to take Greenland would mean the end of NATO.
Behind the scenes in both NATO and the EU the atmosphere is apparently slightly more purposeful, with some potential Arctic mission planning. Above all however, there is a sense of perplexion: the US already has bases in Greenland, it can increase its presence massively, and above all the joint alliance capability is the best defence against Russia and China in the Arctic – Trump’s purported reason for “psychologically” needing Greenland.
Ultimately therefore, Europeans are finally beginning to assimilate reality: a year into the second Trump administration it is clear the US no longer sees them as true allies. Mark Rutte can talk Trump up for getting everyone to spend more, which is fine for the SG of NATO, but it is becoming increasingly obvious to many European states that the alliance led by the US may no longer be reliable.
________________________________________________________________________________________
The European Leadership Network itself as an institution holds no formal policy positions. The opinions articulated above represent the views of the authors rather than the European Leadership Network or its members. The ELN aims to encourage debates that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing foreign, defence, and security policy challenges of our time, to further its charitable purposes.
