In recent months the United States has expressed revived interest in taking ownership of the self-governing territory. This unprecedented step has sparked a fierce backlash from European leaders. Remember when Donald Trump tried to buy Greenland from Denmark? Yet, his plan has been met with tremendous pushback from a majority of European nations. The growing crisis led Denmark to call an emergency meeting of its foreign affairs committee to discuss how to respond.
The US is clearly desperate to get a leg up on Greenland. Fifty-nine leaders consider this shift by the White House as a direct slap to Danish sovereignty. European leaders reacted immediately and strongly, with a joint declaration from European heads of state and government, stating that “Greenland belongs to its people.” The first joint statement to reach this conclusion was issued by the prime ministers of Denmark, Italy, Poland and Spain. On top of that, strong allies, including leaders Keir Starmer from the UK, Emmanuel Macron from France, and Friedrich Merz from Germany, backed them up.
As war breaks out in Europe and temperatures rise, Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen recently declared that NATO’s responsibility to defend their allies. She stated, “If the US chooses to attack another NATO country, everything will stop.” This declaration highlights the fragile shake-up of power and payer agreement within the alliance.
The US’s approach has received legitimate scorn for what it means but for how outrageously audacious the US has been in asserting said audacity. Marco Rubio accidentally let it slip to Congressional lawmakers that one of Trump’s favorite options was actually to purchase Greenland from Denmark. European leaders have been highly critical of this idea. For them, the very concept of an American invasion is a foreign concept and they push back hard against it.
“If Europe acquiesces in US actions against the Maduro regime, it risks weakening the legal principles that underpin its opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” – Alberto Alemanno
European leaders have not been reticent in articulating their displeasure. The UK, France, and Germany released a joint statement in defense of Denmark and upholding the rights of the Greenlandic population. Their unified position makes clear that any instability in Greenland should be addressed by its people alone.
Nathalie Tocci commented on the situation, stating, “The more European countries act as colonies, unable and unwilling to stand up to Trump, the more they’ll be treated as such.” Behind this sentiment lies a newfound concern among European leaders about the European loss of agency in the geostrategic direction of international affairs.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot is certain that Greenland will not end up like Venezuela. He called on European countries, here and elsewhere, to be vigilant against future US aggression. His comments reveal a misplaced confidence in the virtues of diplomatic ties between NATO member states.
With those questions come deeper uncertainties about the nature of collective security within NATO itself. Mujtaba Rahman pointed out, “Nobody would realistically expect any of NATO’s 31 other members to defend Greenland militarily if the US sought to seize it.” This recognition adds even more gravitas to concerns about the potential for conflict.
The seriousness of the moment is only multiplied by geopolitical realities. This description mattered, because Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister watching the situation from the front lines, called any American action against Greenland “legitimate.” This line of thinking highlights a dangerous divide in how international law and national sovereignty are understood among world leaders.
In Europe, the reaction from leaders has been cautious but resolute. Their solidarity is a testament to their common determination to defend the world’s most basic principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Keir Starmer, Macron and Merz all confidently enshrined this notion in their joint declaration. Their galvanizing message was that only Denmark and Greenland should determine the latter’s fate.
The military capacity backdrop makes this even more difficult. The US proudly enjoys the deployment of 1.3 million active military personnel across all of its various services. Denmark’s military consists of only 13,100 personnel. This demographic disparity should give Denmark some pause about its capacity to defend itself and its distant territories against external threats without relying on US support.
Stephen Miller articulated a prevailing sentiment among some American policymakers, asserting that international relations are “governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” This mentality has possibly grown into the current fracture and mistrust characterizing US-European relations today.