Can Europe withstand an attack by Trump on Greenland?

LondonFive days after the Donald Trump's inauguration, On January 25 of last year, Austrian General Robert Brieger, then head of the European Union Military Committee, warned in an interview with the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag that it would make sense to deploy European troops in Greenland. His words were not merely speculative: they responded to the repeated statements by the US president of his interest in acquiring the Danish autonomous territory for reasons of "national security." An interest that Trump had already expressed during his first term and which, as a result of Saturday's military operation to capture Nicolás MaduroHe has reiterated this with a disturbing determination. To the point that the White House is not explicitly ruling it out. the use of military force or economic coercion against a NATO ally like Denmark, the sovereign state over the Arctic island.

In statements to Radio France Inter, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot asserted this Wednesday: "We have begun working to prepare to retaliate, to respond, and not to respond alone." Paris and Berlin are working together. And this afternoon, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated in Parliament that the future of Greenland must be decided between the Danes and the Greenlanders. The three capitals, plus Madrid, Warsaw, and Rome, signed a statement on Tuesday highlighting the idea that Greenland "belongs to its people""

On the other hand, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen admitted Tuesday night her concern about the words of Trump and his advisors, and that she had requested an urgent meeting with the Americans to discuss the issue. She also acknowledged, however, the balance of power: "The American position, and then we will have to defend our interests," she said on her country's public television.

For his part, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced this Wednesday that he will meet with the Danish government next week. "If the president identifies a threat to the national security of the military states," he said when journalists asked him if Washington was prepared to risk the NATO alliance with a potential military operation in Greenland.

Global competition space

When Washington puts that old geopolitical dream back on the table, Europe It is facing a critical momentBesieged by Russia in Ukraine and betrayed by the White House. It is not simply a matter of rhetorically rejecting a claim that violates international law and the sovereignty of an allied territory. Greenland has become a true geostrategic turning point. Its fate is no longer just a diplomatic issue, but a litmus test for Europe's capacity to act as a global actor.

In this context, on January 29 of last year, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) warned that the Union must defend its interests in the European Arctic through a common strategy that actively involves Greenlandic civil society in all relevant decisions. "Close cooperation with Greenland is key to promoting sustainable investments and ensuring the region's prosperity and resilience," the report indicatedAnd it added a central idea: European interests in the Arctic can only be effectively defended if Europe has a physical presence and the capacity for joint decision-making. It is no coincidence that, just eight months earlier, the European Union had opened its first permanent representation in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.

The Arctic has become an arena of open competition between powers. Russia is reinforcing its military presence, China is projecting itself as a "quasi-Arctic state," and the United States is claiming a dominant position. In response, the aforementioned EESC proposes updating the European strategy for the region as a key element of the Union's military autonomy, resilience, and competitiveness.

Greenlanders assert their right to self-determination with the slogan "Nothing about us without us," and perceive the EU as a close ally due to shared values of human rights, the rule of law, and social dialogue. In theory, if annexation could be averted in time, strengthening the relationship would consolidate a prosperous and resilient region, diversify European access to critical minerals, and establish a partnership that should be a priority in the next multiannual financial framework. But in the last 96 hours, Trump's statements have made his opinion very clear: "We need Greenland for national security. We must be there. If we're not there, we can't guarantee either national or international security; right now, Greenland is full of Russian and Chinese ships everywhere. We need Greenland."

The island's economic dimension is also a security tool. European control of Greenlandic economic opportunities—through sustainable investments, dual-use infrastructure, and technology projects—is an indirect but powerful way to defend the territory's sovereignty. Some experts warn that if these investments don't materialize, Greenland might be tempted to seek alternative partners; not only the United States, but also China.

Troops on the Arctic island

In parallel, the idea of a European security presence in the region has also gained considerable traction. Robert Brieger's statements regarding the possibility of stationing European troops in Greenland—a political decision currently unthinkable—are not aimed at replacing the United States, but rather at balancing presences and giving Europe a structural role in Arctic security. Although the EU does not have its own army, this option could materialize in combined surveillance units, early warning systems, Arctic technological capabilities, and joint exercises with the Nordic allies, under the NATO umbrella but with European leadership. Finally, Europe also needs a solid diplomatic and narrative front. It can and should explicitly defend the claim that Greenland belongs to its people and that Denmark is the sovereign guarantor. It must promote multilateral mechanisms that safeguard the principle that borders cannot be moved by force, even if the pressure comes from an ally. Turning the defense of Greenland into a symbol of respect for the international order, sovereignty, and multilateralism is a way of standing up to Trump, but also to Moscow and Beijing.