Donald Trump backed down on Greenland. The internet is abuzz with mockery that he once again used his tactic of flexing his muscles and then quickly backing down (Trump Always Chickens Out) when the other side, this time Europe, bared its teeth. However, apart from the American flag on the map of Greenland, the American president achieved what he wanted.
So far, there is no official agreement with Denmark. He only negotiated with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Although the Danish prime minister pointed this out and raised her hackles, it is unlikely that the kingdom would reject the offer and risk a renewed escalation of tensions.
Reporters from various media outlets are writing about how all the leaders breathed a sigh of relief after Thursday's news. For Denmark and Europe, the agreement is a relief, even though initial indications suggest that it is once again asymmetrical.
While the kingdom will not gain much from it, according to initial indications, Trump will likely gain the right to veto Chinese investments in Greenland, thereby preventing China's economic expansion. For example, China already owns (through Shenghe Resources) the Australian company Greenland Minerals, which controls the Kvanefjeld rare earth deposit in Greenland.
Strategic raw materials, to which Washington will have better access, should be the second subject of the agreement. The third concerns strengthening the American (and allied) military presence in the Arctic and amending the 1951 treaty.
Trump did not back down because of European leaders
Although the internet is full of praise for the assertiveness of European leaders, neither the deployment of that poor military contingent to Greenland northreats to use Trump's trade "bazooka" deterred him.
Other hypotheses are on the table.
Trump may not have been interested in Greenland at all, but simply had certain goals in mind (strengthening military presence, raw materials, stopping investment from China) and used a carrot-and-stick approach. A new agreement with Denmark, which would normally take months or years to negotiate, can now be resolved in a matter of weeks. And everyone will be relieved.
The second possibility is that he really wanted to cover Greenland with American colors on the map, but as a pragmatic businessman, he gradually calculated that the costs of officially planting the American flag on this "piece of ice" exceed what actual control of the island can give him (direct access to raw materials, which are, however, very difficult to extract). Especially if he can get it faster with the proposed agreement.
In addition, there is another factor that often gets overlooked but plays a significant role for Trump. That factor is the US markets. Investors responded to geopolitical tensions not only by selling off riskier stocks, but also by selling off "safe" US bonds, which saw a sharp rise in yields (i.e., debt costs for the White House).
Europe's voice is weak
It is quite paradoxical how the progressive environment tips its hat to European leaders when the very outline of the agreement between Trump and Mark Rutte is just another reminder of Europe's weak position in the world.
Although Greenland remains Danish, the Americans will enjoy many advantages that would be unthinkable in sovereign democracies. If we disregard the fact that Trump is inviting coalition leaders willing to negotiate a Russian-Ukrainian peace agreement to the table only in the second round, the first moment when he exposed Europe was the trade agreement with Brussels.
Let us recall that in this agreement, the EU reduced the average tariff on American goods to almost zero, while Washington increased its tariffs several times over to a flat rate of 15 percent. Von der Leyen also committed to purchasing more American liquefied gas and weapons and to investing heavily in America.
Both agreements are a testament to the continent's wasted years of prosperity, during which it failed to invest in independence and risk diversification, not only in the area of security, but also in energy and trade.
Although Europe's poor position is not set in stone, the road to independence will be difficult.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney summed it up quite well in Davos, Switzerland: "Many countries have come to the same conclusion that they need to develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, finance, and supply chains. (...) When the rules no longer protect you, you have to protect yourself."
It should be added that America, as a superpower, looked after its interests even before Trump, but not so blatantly. It was possible to turn a blind eye to it before. However, the directness and swift action of the current president have shown everyone the naked truth.
Trust has now been seriously undermined, and European countries must think about how to secure their own living space on their own.
What does independence mean and where to look for the way forward?
The continent has been addressing the issue of dependence at least since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. However, diversification measures have not been comprehensive, but only bilateral with regard to Russia. In the field of energy (especially gas), only one other country (the US) has a monopoly among importers.
The return of pragmatism on the issue of Russia is only the first step. Pragmatism is also lacking in the area of environmental policy.
The EU needs to get rid of bureaucrats, relax the environmental rules that are most damaging to its industry, and allow exploration and extraction where its mineral wealth lies. Rare earths have been known about in Greenland for a good decade, but almost nothing has changed in terms of regulations.
It is important to get rid of the idea that fossil fuels are taboo. If the continent is to be independent in terms of security, it needs to have a strong domestic industry, which is currently unfeasible without oil and gas. There is no need to worry – if energy from renewable sources becomes more advantageous for industry, it will switch to it very quickly.
The stumbling block is emissions allowances (EU ETS). Industry is not just about end manufacturers of weapons (which can easily be granted indulgences), but also about companies throughout the supply chain, whose costs are artificially increased by the carbon tax.
Instead of backing down, Brussels has introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) this year, which also penalizes imported goods that have generated emissions and for which no one has paid. The motto is: if production is to become more expensive, then it should be for everyone.
The problem is that Europe simply does not have many resources and needs to import them. Ideally, from a number of smaller suppliers to spread the risk. But instead of reducing trade barriers in key sectors, it is artificially inflating them with carbon tariffs.
Building walls around its own economy is simply not enough. Donald Trump's tariff policy has shown Europe that it should trade more with the rest of the world. But in such a way that it does not increase its dependence on individual players.
Mark Carney calls these countries "middle powers" that must obey the hegemon on their own, but when they join forces with others, it is a path to independence.
Agreements with Mercosur, India, and Australia, which must be balanced, are therefore welcome as a whole and should be concluded as soon as possible without delay.
These are all steps that cannot be taken overnight. Building independence takes years. In the meantime, Europe's main task is to play for time and use the art of diplomacy. To survive Trump, but also those who come after him.