Why Europe must oppose Trump’s threat to annex Denmark’s territory

Europe has grown accustomed to strategic discomfort, but Donald Trump’s renewed insistence that the United States should acquire Greenland, by purchase, pressure, or even force, if need be by hook or by crook, pushes that discomfort into genuinely dangerous territory.

What is at stake is not merely a remote Arctic island, but the credibility of European sovereignty, alliance politics, and the continent’s claim to act as a serious geopolitical power.

Greenland is not an exotic footnote in international affairs. It constitutes roughly 98 percent of the Kingdom of Denmark’s landmass, anchoring Copenhagen’s status as an Arctic power and providing Europe with strategic depth in a region of growing geopolitical importance. Remove Greenland, and Denmark shrinks from a significant Arctic actor into a small continental state; remove Greenland from Europe, and the continent forfeits any meaningful claim to influence in the High North.

Trump’s interest in Greenland is neither casual nor hypothetical. In a series of recent statements reported by several reputable international outlets, he asserted that the U.S. would act on Greenland “whether they like it or not,” claiming, without evidence, that if Washington did not move first, Russia or China would take over the island. He added that the United States would pursue a resolution “the easy way,” but warned that “if we don’t do it the easy way, we will do it the hard way.” In the same remarks, he questioned Denmark’s historical claim: “the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land.”

Such reasoning is legally and historically untenable. Denmark has exercised control over Greenland for roughly three centuries, and in 1916 the United States formally recognized Danish sovereignty in exchange for the Danish West Indies. Moreover, U.S. public opinion hardly supports military adventures in Greenland: only 7 percent of Americans favor using force to seize the island, while a large majority oppose such action.

Europe’s response has been cautious but principled. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that any U.S. attack on Greenland could spell the end of NATO. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Greenland itself issued a joint statement affirming that Greenland belongs to its people and that decisions regarding its future rest with Denmark and Greenland alone.

Europe has already demonstrated a pattern of acquiescence to Trump’s demands. Beyond increasing defense expenditures, much of which flows directly into the American defense industry, several European states have financed Ukraine’s war effort with billions in military aid. At the same time, the EU accepted a 15 percent U.S. tariff on European exports, prioritizing de-escalation over economic self-defense. Collectively, these actions have imposed a heavy burden on European industries and consumers, highlighting the continent’s reliance on Washington for both security and trade leverage.

Such subservience comes at a high cost. Europe has joined a proxy war against Russia, imposed sanctions that have harmed its own economy more than Russia’s, and absorbed soaring energy costs after the destruction of Nord Stream, all while eroding industrial competitiveness and strategic autonomy.

Greenland now tests whether this pattern has hardened into permanence: Europe has already paid a huge economic and strategic price, and to surrender Greenland to U.S. control, whether by force or legalistic maneuvers, would simply confirm a long-standing habit: Europe bearing the costs while others claim the gains.

Europe must act decisively. The 15 percent U.S. tariff should not be accepted unconditionally; reciprocity is essential. NATO contributions should be recalibrated to prioritize European strategic autonomy, rather than subsidizing American defense contractors. Europe must redirect resources toward building a truly indigenous defense-industrial base capable of safeguarding the continent independently.

Geopolitically, Europe must acknowledge the reality of its neighborhood. Russia is a permanent neighbor, not a temporary inconvenience. Endless confrontation has been economically ruinous and strategically futile. A comprehensive European peace framework with Russia, grounded in coexistence and economic pragmatism, is imperative. Geography, unlike ideology, cannot be sanctioned away.

Greenland demands immediate and tangible action. Europe should deploy a European military presence in Greenland, under Danish and European authority, as a clear statement that the continent will defend its own territory. Simultaneously, the legal and political foundations of the U.S. military presence across Europe must be reassessed. Bases exist by European consent, not historical entitlement. Europe should renegotiate, cancel, or condition agreements, requiring the U.S. to pay for the right to maintain troops in Europe or Greenland. Security is not charity.

It should also be noted that in the coming week, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Vivian Motzfeldt, Greenland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, are scheduled to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Simultaneously, several American senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties are traveling to Copenhagen as part of an official visit, where they will interact with the media and meet with members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Danish Parliament. These high-level meetings clearly demonstrate that the issue remains a top priority in Washington and that strategic attention on Greenland has not diminished.

Above all, Europe must act with unity, decisiveness, and in its long-term interest. Greenland is not merely a territorial dispute; it is a mirror reflecting whether Europe intends to remain a serious geopolitical actor, or will resign itself to a condition of managed decline under external influence. Why, despite its economic weight, institutional depth, and strategic geography, does Europe continue to punch below its weight? And why does it hesitate to articulate, with equal clarity and resolve, that Greenland is essential to Europe’s own security architecture and therefore not a possession to be bartered away? The United States may be a partner, even an indispensable one, but partnership cannot mean submission. Europe must insist that it will cooperate with Washington, not concede sovereignty to it; ally with America, not accept its role as master and owner. If Europe cannot defend Denmark today, it will struggle to defend itself tomorrow.

END OF ARTICLE