How Europe could stop Trump from conquering Greenland

Greenland, a largely self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is not a member of the European Union, but Denmark is – and the island is covered by NATO guarantees thanks to Copenhagen’s membership.

This legal and political overlap has placed the EU and the transatlantic alliance in a difficult position, with sovereignty, territorial integrity and alliance unity at stake.

Diplomatic efforts are already underway. Denmark’s ambassador to Washington, Jesper Møller Sørensen, and Greenland envoy Jacob Isbosethsen have lobbied US lawmakers over Trump’s plan.

Officials are expected to emphasize that a 1951 U.S.-Danish defense treaty — updated in 2004 — already allows for a significant expansion of the U.S. military presence on the island, including new bases.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has put the stakes sharply, warning that any US attack or invasion of Greenland would mean “the end of NATO.”

A European diplomatic source said: “The core message being conveyed to Washington is that NATO is built on mutual obligations – solidarity is not a one-way street. If one ally begins to ignore the sovereignty of another ally, the entire foundation of the alliance is called into question. That is something European capitals take very seriously.”

The source added: “If the United States were to act unilaterally on Greenland, Europe would be forced to respond. It would not be a symbolic protest or a strongly worded statement – ​​it would lead to last-ditch measures designed to protect Greenland’s territorial integrity and uphold international law.

“No one wants escalation, but European governments are making it clear that they cannot simply stand aside if the rules-based order from the alliance itself is violated.”

NATO ambassadors are said to have agreed to increase military spending in the Arctic, expand exercises and deploy additional equipment.

European officials have also emerged as an example of a security measure against the Baltic Sentry, a NATO mission to protect infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, and the Eastern Sentry, aimed at countering threats to Europe’s eastern flank.

Diplomats privately acknowledge that while Trump’s claim that Greenland is “full of Chinese and Russian ships everywhere” is an exaggeration, a coordinated Western security initiative could offer a face-saving compromise.

Economic leverage is another option. The EU’s anti-coercion tool – dubbed the ‘trade bazooka’ – would allow the European Commission to ban US goods and services, impose tariffs and restrict investment. But that instrument requires unanimous political will.

Jean-Marie Guéhenno, a former senior UN official, warned: “Whether in data protection, artificial intelligence or software updates, including for defense, Europe remains at the mercy of American goodwill.”

Greenland’s economic dependence on Denmark has also come under scrutiny. A draft European Commission proposal from September proposes doubling the EU’s financial commitment to the island to match Denmark’s subsidy, with additional funding available for remote associated areas.

An EU official said: “If Trump is talking about pouring billions into Greenland, the European response would not be to match rhetoric with rhetoric, but to offer a credible long-term partnership. Brussels has the ability to structure sustainable investments, infrastructure financing and economic cooperation that links Greenland’s future to Europe in a stable and predictable way.”

The source added: “The strategic goal would be to ensure that Greenland remains economically anchored in Europe – and not abruptly pulled into Washington’s orbit by flashy promises.

“EU financial support would not be seen as a bidding war, but as a strengthening of existing ties with Denmark and the broader European framework. The message is that Greenland’s prosperity and autonomy are best secured through a stable partnership rather than a sudden geopolitical realignment.”

The most dramatic proposal concerns the deployment of troops.

In an article for the Bruegel think tank, economists Moreno Bertoldi and Marco Buti argued that EU governments should “proactively protect Greenland from US expansionism” and activate the bloc’s rapid deployment capacity of up to 5,000 troops.

They wrote that European troops should be stationed on the island “as a signal of Europe’s commitment to the territorial integrity of Greenland.”

The German government spokesman said Berlin was developing plans “including European deterrence”, while French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot previously raised the possibility of a French contingent.

A global security expert said: “There is no serious voice in Europe that a US-EU confrontation would be desirable or could produce a winner. The economic, political and security costs on both sides would be enormous. It would destroy decades of cooperation that underpins the transatlantic relationship.”

They also warned: “However, if the United States were to take military action against territory linked to an EU member state, the consequences would be profound.

“Defense cooperation would be seriously damaged, financial markets would react sharply to the instability, and Washington’s credibility as a reliable ally would suffer globally. The shockwaves would extend far beyond Greenland and change the way both partners and adversaries view America.”