The transatlantic order, a cornerstone of global stability since 1945, is facing a moment of profound rupture, according to analysis by Christopher S Chivvis. The announcement on 17 January that Washington will impose punitive tariffs of 10% to 25% on eight European allies unless they facilitate the complete and total purchase of Greenland is likely to sound the death knell for this long-standing partnership.
A Shift from Security Guarantor to Imperial Rent-Seeker
By linking the territorial sovereignty of a NATO ally to trade access, the United States has transitioned from Europe's security guarantor to a 19th-century imperial rent-seeker. This move represents a stark departure from the norms that have governed relations among advanced industrial powers for decades, where raw imperialism was believed to be relegated to the past.
Even China, for all its assertiveness, largely couches its ambitions in the language of revanchism, such as reclaiming lost territory. In contrast, Washington's current demand for Greenland is a throwback to the age of the 1884 Berlin conference, driven by a might makes right worldview that treats land and people as mere transactions.
Internal Pushback and Presidential Power
To be sure, this act of raw aggression faces significant pushback within the United States itself. Senator Thom Tillis has rightly criticized the coercive effort, and public polling indicates that while a segment of the Republican party favours a purchase, only 8% of Americans support the use of force to acquire the territory.
However, Europe must realise it is dealing with a president drunk on executive power, undeterred by congressional dissent or a skeptical public. He views the electorate as malleable and more concerned with the cost of living and culture wars than Arctic sovereignty, making diplomatic resolutions challenging.
Strain on European Unity and Security
The strain on Europe is already intense, with Trump's pressure designed to expose EU fault lines and sow internal division. Member states are forced to prioritise different existential threats and divergent interests, creating a complex geopolitical puzzle.
- Denmark has a near-existential interest in preventing this annexation, given Greenland's status as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
- France and Germany have an interest in demonstrating EU cohesion, yet risk seeing their vital access to US export markets severed if they oppose the tariffs.
- On the eastern flank, Poland and the Baltic states face an impossible paradox, as they rely on American military support to deter Russian aggression but must stay silent on Greenland to maintain that shield.
This coercion undermines the very logic of the security guarantee, raising questions about the reliability of an ally that uses the threat of abandonment to compel the sale of a neighbour's territory.
EU's Defensive Tools and the Risk of Escalation
Brussels is already reaching for its most powerful defensive tool, the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI). This trade bazooka, designed to bypass national vetos through qualified majority voting, allows for a range of EU retaliation measures. However, firing it against Washington would represent a major escalation and could be irreversible.
For the eastern flank, activating the instrument risks acting on a suicide pact by jeopardising US security support. Conversely, for Paris and Berlin, failing to activate it could signal the end of European sovereignty, leaving the bloc vulnerable to further coercion.
A Call for European Rebirth Over Vassalage
In the face of this trauma, the traditional European habit of weathering the storm must be actively resisted. The wait and see approach is no longer a strategy but a recipe for perpetual vassalage. The Greenland crisis is not just bad weather; it is a structural shift that demands a robust response.
European leaders must use this crisis as the necessary political catalyst to further the continent's own sovereign defences. This involves overcoming bureaucratic and nationalistic resistance that has long stalled defence integration, forcing recalcitrant national defence industries into irreversible cooperation.
- To fund this, leaders need to break long-standing taboos by re-energising the continent's economy through a radical mix of immigration, economic liberalism, and wise industrial policy.
- This approach should aim to boost Europe into the first tier of technological powers, generating the financial resources needed for an independent defence.
Doing so will generate turmoil by challenging entrenched interests on both the left and the right, but the urgency of the mid-21st century will not permit a gradual approach. Every month spent debating is a month lost in building a secure future.
The choice is no longer between the status quo and integration. It is between a painful European rebirth or a slow descent into a world where the EU collapses internally, its security is in tatters, and it becomes a target for expansion from powers like Moscow. This moment demands decisive action to preserve European sovereignty and stability in an increasingly volatile global landscape.
