Fire & Ice: 5 Levers of EU Resistance in the Greenland Crisis
President Trump’s threat of acquiring Greenland and imposing tariffs on eight European trading partners has further eroded the European Union (EU) leaders’ trust in the powerful alliance that formed in the aftermath of World War II. Ceding sovereignty over Greenland to the United States is a red line for the EU. While there’s no guarantee Trump will back down on his aspirations, Europe is not without leverage in the Greenland saga.
What’s the end game?
Let’s be clear from the start. America’s annexation of Greenland would violate Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self‑determination, fundamentally undermining NATO’s credibility and potentially ending the alliance. That would greatly benefit countries like Russia and China.
Our working premise is that Donald Trump intends to showcase another signature achievement in his famous ‘art of the deal’ style. By using maximalist pressure and brute-force escalation, Donald Trump tries to create a massive bargaining chip to get something in return (including personal prestige).
Officially, the push for Greenland is primarily related to national security, as Donald Trump views the island as essential for the Golden Dome missile system to intercept hostile strikes. The island's strategic value is amplified by its command over emerging Arctic shipping routes. As melting ice opens the Northwest Passage, this reduces transit times between Asia, Europe, and North America. Observers also highlight Greenland’s mineral wealth as an economic bonus, even though these resources are currently too difficult (expensive) to access.
One wonders why the United States is pursuing such an unusually aggressive strategy towards Greenland, rather than relying on traditional diplomacy with Denmark, Greenland’s own government and NATO. Especially since a 1951 treaty already provides extensive US military basing rights. Also, ‘grabbing Greenland’ is rather unpopular with his Republican fanbase (even though many support a peaceful purchase). One reason is that Trump, as a ‘real estate businessman’, wants something concrete (ownership instead of partnership). A second reason is disregard for Europe, which is seen as weak. A third reason is that Trump is Trump.
What could Europe do in the short run?
The United States could almost certainly secure more durable and stable access to Greenland’s strategic benefits through collaborative diplomacy rather than coercion. But since Trump is Trump, we cannot dismiss the risk of further hostile moves towards the annexation of Greenland (paid or otherwise). After all, the ‘TACO’ psychology that observers have labelled Trump with – acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out – has not always proven right.
Read the full analysis on the CIO Perspectives
January 22, 2026
