NUUK, Greenland — The White House once openly mocked the idea that Denmark, or even all of Europe combined, could successfully defend Greenland against a potential U.S. intervention. Danish officials were reportedly dismissed as “irrelevant,” and Europe was portrayed as diminished in power. But last week, Europe proved that assessment wrong, averting a crisis and demonstrating a newfound resolve.
Europe Pushes Back, Trump Reconsiders Greenland Pursuit
A coordinated economic response from the European Union prompted former President Trump to back down from his long-held ambition to acquire the Arctic territory, a victory for Denmark’s sovereignty.
- Plans for a forceful economic response from the EU spooked U.S. markets, leading to Trump’s reversal.
- Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen publicly acknowledged the support received from allies.
- The incident has sparked a broader discussion among U.S. allies about confronting a changing global order.
- Leaders are now emphasizing the importance of collective action to counter unilateral moves by powerful nations.
“We’ll get by with a little help from our friends,” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wrote in a guest book at Chequers on Thursday, referencing the Beatles lyric during a visit with her British counterpart. The sentiment underscored the crucial role of international cooperation in the face of escalating tensions.
The potential for conflict hasn’t entirely dissipated. On Friday in Nuuk, after meeting with local leaders at a government office on Greenland’s capital’s main boulevard, Frederiksen embraced residents fearful of perceived U.S. imperialism. She declined to comment on whether tensions with Washington had been fully defused.
A Turning Point for U.S. Allies
The Greenland crisis has emerged as a pivotal moment for U.S. allies, who, gathered last week in Davos, Switzerland, abandoned the pretense of normalcy in their relationship with Washington. “The middle powers must act together,” said Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, in a widely circulated speech, “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”
Within Europe, disagreements persist regarding how to manage interactions with Trump. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reportedly expressed frustration with French President Emmanuel Macron’s approach, which involved public criticism coupled with private attempts at appeasement.
Despite these internal divisions, a consensus emerged that a firm stance against the U.S. attempt to acquire Greenland was necessary to prevent further escalation, even if it risked straining the NATO alliance.
Markets responded positively to Trump’s reversal, rebounding to previous highs. However, experts cautioned that repairing U.S. relations with its partners will be a protracted process.
“Trump’s retreat, and the skillful European handling of him, avoided an immediate crisis, but not the longer-term damage,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat. “An unpredictable and unfriendly United States threatening to use force against a fellow NATO ally was unthinkable. Now it is thinkable — because it just happened.”
“Leaders of allies will be pondering this for the next three years and figuring out what works with Trump, whom he listens to, and how much of the problem is Trump,” Abrams added, “as opposed to deeper currents in American politics that will outlast him.”
In the wake of the crisis, several allied leaders who had previously refrained from public criticism of Trump began to voice their concerns. “There’s no point in being soft anymore,” Belgium’s prime minister stated to local media.
After Trump falsely claimed Thursday that NATO partners had “stayed a little back, off the front lines” in Afghanistan, despite suffering over 1,000 casualties, Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, labeled the remarks “insulting and, frankly, appalling.”
Peter Kastor, a history professor at Washington University in St. Louis specializing in U.S. land acquisitions, noted that while Trump’s pursuit of Greenland was dramatic within the United States, it was “traumatic in Europe.”
“The issue in this case is the consequences of this roller-coaster ride are so profound,” Kastor said. “Even if Trump does in fact establish a U.S. military presence, with little difference from what the United States is already entitled to do through prior treaty agreements, the damage to U.S.-European relations are real and potentially long-lasting.”
Carney’s speech in Davos resonated deeply with foreign leaders—including Trump, who deviated from his prepared remarks to criticize the Canadian leader.
“When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating,” Carney said. “This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
“In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice — compete with each other for favor, or to combine to create a third path with impact,” he added.
On Friday, Trump disinvited Carney from joining his “Board of Peace,” an organization Trump founded primarily to assist in the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. No European nation, other than Hungary, had agreed to participate.
Membership on the board required a $1-billion contribution. Canada declined, Carney explained in Davos, citing concerns about the intended use of the funds.
