Trump wants to control Greenland and doesn't care what means he uses to achieve this. He himself said that he would even use military force if necessary. On Wednesday, he finally changed his mind. Just as he usually does. A satisfactory agreement is reportedly on the table, although it is unclear how long this situation will last. However, this is mainly the result of diplomacy, not because Europe has deterred Trump. Moreover, we do not know much about the details yet.
It should be noted that US military intervention in Greenland was unlikely from the outset of Trump's threats. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Bruegel think tank, for example, noted that his military ambitions are limited by Congress. After the US attack on Venezuela on January 8, the Senate voted to explicitly require that further military action be approved by Congress. This also applies to Trump's interest in Greenland.
The violent takeover of the island also lacks long-term public support. Only eight percent of Americans are in favor of it, while three-quarters would be against it. The US is also facing parliamentary elections to the Senate and House of Representatives soon.
No wonder Trump has gradually backed away from the idea of a violent takeover of the island. Besides, it is unclear whether he meant what he said or whether it was a negotiating tactic.
European bazooka
The American president does not need to start with hard power to get Europe where he wants it. Soft pressure is enough.
That's what happened in this case. Over the weekend, he first announced 10% tariffs on eight European countries, to be imposed from February 1 until the issue of acquiring Greenland is resolved. He threatened that the rate would increase to 25% in the middle of the year.
Europe was expected to respond.
However, the Old Continent currently has few options for confronting the United States in a conflict of interests. Its main, if not only, weapon is wealth. In addition to holding approximately 40 percent of US bonds (not to mention stocks), Europeans offer a market that is truly lucrative for many American companies, having exported more than €760 billion worth of goods and services there in 2024.
Immediately after Trump's tariff threat, the media began speculating that Brussels might finally pull out its "bazooka" after nearly a year of trade disputes with Trump.
This is calledthe Anti-Coercion Instrument, and it is designed to protect the EU and its members from economic pressure from third countries. In the case of the US, American tech giants and digital service providers, which earn lucrative money on the European market, could be targeted. We are talking about Meta, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, and many others. This painful measure has the potential to change the decisions of the White House chief through the influential heads of these giants.
Several European leaders have openly called for the use of this weapon. However, this sword cuts both ways. Not only in the sense that tariffs and restrictions hurt consumers even in the country that imposes them.
Europe sends even more goods to America. Trump would not sit idly by in the face of retaliation. Two of the world's three largest economies would quickly spiral into a tariff war. This is something the US did not want to risk even with China, with which it trades on a scale almost three times smaller (although, unlike Europe, China has key raw materials that the United States needs).
But even if the European Union stood its ground, entered into a trade dispute with Trump, and managed to get him to back down and agree (which it ultimately did not have to do), a trade war would not have been a good solution. The old continent's position would only have been worsened by a frosty relationship with Trump.
Trump: Europeans will dance to my tune
America has Europe by the balls in other ways too. Trump knows how to apply pressure in ways other than tariffs, and he is well aware of this, saying himself that he is convinced that European leaders will not "resist too much" his efforts to acquire Greenland.
In a sense, he was right. A few threats were enough for him to reach an agreement very quickly. One that will be lucrative enough for the Americans that they won't have to take over the island. Similarly, when he shook hands with Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland in July.
That humiliating agreement held up a mirror to Europe. Less than six months later, history is repeating itself.
The Americans have played Europe brilliantly, although it would be conspiratorial to look for intent in this. By seeking to expand the North Atlantic Alliance to include Ukraine, they brought it into (in)direct conflict with Russia. What followed is well known to everyone – the continent essentially cut itself off from one of the world's largest suppliers of oil and gas. And it tied itself to America.
It is no longer dependent on America only militarily, but gradually also energetically. Today, Europe's position looks almost the same as it did before the war in Ukraine. The only difference is that it does not depend on Moscow, but on Washington. The US supplies the continent with around 20 percent of its gas. After Norway (approximately one-third), the United States is the second largest supplier, far ahead of Russia (approximately ten percent). And there are no plans to reduce this share, quite the contrary (REPowerEU).
Since Europe has completely broken off relations with Russia, even a partial reversal is currently difficult to imagine. And there is no new supplier with spare gas volumes, no other United States that would be willing to provide an energy lifeline.
Instead of maintaining a diplomatic ethos and strategically thinking about a fallback option for Russian energy, European leaders talked about bloody Russian gas. Now Europe is taking American gas, which is only slightly better, as it serves well as leverage for Trump's imperialist appetites.
It is enough for Trump to withdraw his protective hand from Europe.
If the energy whip is too short, Trump can still withdraw American troops from Europe, make good on his promises to leave NATO, shut down satellite systems and intelligence services, withdraw the nuclear umbrella, and stop supporting Ukraine in any way...
In short, leave Europe to deal with the threat from the east on its own. Sometimes, even just threatening to do so is enough.
The long period of peace has lulled almost everyone on the continent into a slumber. The need for an independent policy that considers the prosperity and security of Europe has been discussed for several years, but local elites have not dared to express their own opinions since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They did not play for time and the continuation of (albeit perhaps unstable and unjust) peace in Europe, they did not dance between the two superpowers, but fell for the one that offered sugar instead of the stick.
However, the interests of superpowers change over time (and with different administrations) and are fickle. It is therefore no surprise that the surprised European elites, led by Kaja Kallas, joke in private that the current state of the world is a good reason to start drinking.
