The US president’s aggressive campaign for control of Greenland has plunged transatlantic relations into an unprecedented crisis. Denmark and its European neighbours remain on tenterhooks.
Our network, like much of the world’s media, attempts to get to the bottom of US President Donald Trump’s desire to wrest this so-called “piece of ice” from the hands of a longstanding ally.
A moving feast
Last week, a number of European countries, including France, Germany, Sweden and the UK, joined a military exercise led by Denmark on the island. The US subsequently threatened extra tariffs on countries refusing to bend to its will regarding control of the territory.
Then on Wednesday, the European Parliament announced the suspension of interinstitutional negotiations on the agreement with the US regarding the removal and reduction of customs duties on certain American products – a decision that was supported by all political groups except for the ECR.
That very same day, Trump appeared to climb down on the tariffs issue, and to rule out taking Greenland by force. Cue a great sigh of relief in Denmark.
https://x.com/larsloekke/status/2014083808656536003?s=48
But with his intentions regarding Greenland still unclear, Brussels continues to beaver away behind the scenes, drawing up plans for potential retaliation that include activating an anti-coercion tool that could prevent US companies from entering the EU market.
Trump’s motivations
But what is really behind this volatile situation, which has been changing by the hour?
Trump has long insisted that his interest in Greenland is focused on national security, but given that the US already has the right to station as many troops there as it wants, few people believe that this is his sole motivation.
Manuel Poêjo Torres has worked for many years as a NATO researcher and consultant. The Portuguese political scientist tells Rádio Renascença that the US interest in Greenland conveniently serves to divert attention from domestic issues for Donald Trump.
Manuel Poêjo Torres, NATO Researcher and Consultant (in Portuguese):
“Until we see military operations in Greenland – hostile operations and annexation – I remain conservative in my opinion and continue to believe that this is nothing more than Donald Trump’s political rhetoric and a distraction from what is happening within the United States, both in terms of the economy and in relation to the Epstein case.”
Could all of this fuss really just be a case of burying bad news? Surely not… but if it is, there is other ‘bad news’ that Trump would be all too keen to bury – namely the uncomfortable issue of climate change. And it is certainly the case that this major, global, existential threat has slipped further and further from the headlines among wars of words over tariffs, not to mention fears of an international military conflict.
The irony is that while the US president is busy denying climate change, that very climate change is making the Arctic region more vulnerable to his advances. Or so says experienced climate and energy analyst Genady Kondarev.
Kondarev tells Bulgarian National Radio that Greenland, the world’s largest island, has seen a steady decline in its ice sheet over the past three decades. And that as the ice cap melts, the Arctic is becoming increasingly accessible – whether for trade, military action or, indeed, mining.
Genady Kondarev, Senior Climate and Energy Analyst at Klimateka (in Bulgarian):
“Part of the picture is indeed related to climate, because more and more of this ice-covered territory is becoming accessible for mining. Some 25 of the 34 key minerals that Europe needs for its industry can be found in Greenland.”
https://bnrnews.bg/horizont/post/416789/grenlandiya-razmenna-moneta-i-urok-za-badeshteto
We have certainly heard a lot of speculation about Greenland’s potentially healthy oil and gas reserves over recent weeks, as well as its rare earth deposits. But it is clear that the nation’s riches do not end there.
Yet perhaps Trump’s primary motivation is simply to secure his place in the history books by joining the likes of Putin’s Russia in a new wave of 21st century colonialism.
This is Theodoros Tsikas’s take on the matter. Tsikas is a Greek political scientist and specialist in international relations, and he shares his viewpoint with our colleagues at Skai.
Theodoros Tsikas, Political Scientist (in Greek):
“I believe he wants to go down in American history as the president who expanded the territorial reach of the United States to the greatest extent in a century. And I think this is a key motivation behind his stance on Greenland so far.”
And along the same lines, Serge Jaumain, an expert in American history based at ULB university in Brussels, questions whether the US president may finally have overstepped the mark. He is speaking to RTBF.
Serge Jaumain, Professor of History at ULB (in French):
“It seems that Maduro’s exfiltration was ultimately a turning point, in the sense that Donald Trump, at that moment, believed he was finally capable of anything. It is true that, from a military standpoint, experts considered it to be a special – indeed, an exceptional – operation from a technical perspective, though not, of course, from an international law perspective. But immediately afterwards, we saw Donald Trump come back strong on Greenland, repeating that he was going to ‘take Greenland’. Something had shifted here. Yet what is interesting is that, from that moment on, [the response to his rhetoric] has been much harsher than in the case of Maduro. […] We get the impression that Donald Trump is testing how far he can go. And in this case, he may indeed have gone too far.”
The EU’s response
European leaders have come under significant flack for what has been widely viewed – arguably even by the US president himself – as a ‘weak’ and ‘slow’ response to Trump’s posturing during the first year of his second mandate… including, as Jaumain noted, over Venezuela.
And as geopolitical expert Pascal Boniface, director of Paris-based think tank the Institute of International and Strategic Affairs, pointed out during a debate at RTBF, this previously cautious approach may only have served to encourage Trump’s ambitions.
Pascal Boniface, Director of IRIS (in French):
“Until now, we have said to ourselves, ‘It will all work out, we just need to let the storm pass’. In fact, we fed Trump’s appetite by giving in to him a little at a time. Rather than appeasing him, we actually whetted and excited his appetite.”
He does not believe, though, that we should have gone out there all guns blazing over Greenland, and considers the Europeans to have handled this latest crisis appropriately – at least so far.
Portuguese socialist and democrat MEP Francisco Assis concurs.
Francisco Assis, Member of the European Parliament – S&D, Portugal (in Portuguese):
“The European Union is responding diplomatically and with clear political signals. The fact that, for example, military personnel from several European countries are currently in Greenland is symbolically significant.”
And Bulgarian analyst Genady Kondarev is inclined to agree.
Genady Kondarev, Senior Climate and Energy Analyst at Klimateka (in Bulgarian):
“Europe’s response was very reasonable, sending small groups of soldiers from different countries to Greenland. This was something that a number of leading media outlets took the liberty of mocking. Let’s say that Germany sends 13 soldiers, and a total of nine countries have contingents in Greenland. This is actually an extremely important diplomatic signal.”
So, even if – and this is a big if – we see a Trump climbdown over the coming days and weeks, has too much damage been done for transatlantic relations to return to anything like ‘normal’? Our Greek expert Theodoros Tsikas thinks so.
Theodoros Tsikas, Political Scientist (in Greek):
“The problem is that an alliance must be built on trust, on the mutual trust of all allies toward one another, and what is currently being eroded is precisely that trust.”
So, if this is the case, where should Europe be focusing its attention now? Autonomy, autonomy, autonomy, says Tsikas – not to mention closer European integration.
Theodoros Tsikas, Political Scientist (in Greek):
“European integration needs to accelerate and deepen across all sectors: political, defence, economic, and so on. This may mean that not all European countries take part in this advanced level of cooperation. Much like the enhanced cooperation mechanism of the eurozone, in which not all EU member states participate, a similar model could apply to foreign and defence policy. Those EU countries willing to move forward with deeper integration in common foreign and security policy could do so, while leaving the door open for others to join in the future, whenever they are willing or able.”
Keep calm and carry on
Of course, it is easy to get caught up in the furore, but Lithuanian foreign minister Kęstutis Budrys attempts to put it all in perspective in an interview with Žinių Radijas that took place on Thursday morning.
Kęstutis Budrys, Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (in Lithuanian):
“If we look at our social networks in the morning and again in the evening, it seems like quite a rollercoaster. Everything can change; can even turn on its head. However, if we look at America’s position between January 20 and January 22, we can see that in relation to Ukraine, those changes that initially came about under the Biden administration – the provision of financial support and direct, in-kind support – have not been altered significantly. America is still involved in diplomatic efforts there, creating the conditions for us to buy weapons for Ukraine. And when it comes to sanctions on Russia, well, America imposes more of them than Europe does.”
So, does this mean that the EU’s relatively calm response to Trump’s latest posturing was, in fact, the right approach to take to ease the recent tensions in transatlantic relations?
Kęstutis Budrys, Lithuania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (in Lithuanian):
“I think that the united stance of European states is definitely one factor that has helped to de-escalate the situation a little. I think it is good that we did not give in to the hotheads who recommended threatening the Americans, hitting back at them with economic measures in response to their threats of tariffs, and that we managed to put this issue on the agenda for discussion among the allies. What we said was that all security-related matters should be discussed within the framework of NATO.”
But we don’t want to speak too soon.
On Thursday, EU leaders were meeting informally in Brussels. However, this meeting was unlikely to bear much fruit – not while details remained thin on the ground regarding the very-work-in-progress agreement with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte to which Trump alluded on Wednesday night.
The US president’s unpredictability is forcing the EU to consider literally all scenarios, though.
