As Richard Nixon was wont to say, to make one thing perfectly clear, your truly is not about to argue that the shambolic European leaders could muster up the spine and organization to go toe to toe with Trump. But it is still important to counter the view expressed that the US is too powerful to be contested over Trump’s clearly keenly desired Greenland heist. So far, in addition to threatening invasion, Trump’s big bludgeon is the threat of additional tariffs.
We’ll go through some of the measure that Europeans could deploy, but the biggest is already starting to play out, which is freaking out investors who will pull back from US investments, particularly risky ones like stocks. Recall that Trump the tariff enthusiast retreated substantially after his Liberation Day shock and awe as US stocks and the dollar swooned as foreign investors cut their exposures.1
Note that the blustering in the media about the Europeans flexing muscles by dumping Treasuries is misguided, even before getting to the fact that, as we have discussed, that the Fed could directly monetize the Federal deficit. There is no operational need to issue Treasury bonds; it’s a political holdover from the gold standard days. We also have this tweet in Links because the beliefs it debunks are far too prevalent:
Rumours first circulated last month Europe and UK had threatened to liquidate US Treasuries as a 'nuclear option' if Trump does a deal with Putin to end the Ukraine war against European interests. The rumour is back as potential retaliation for invading Greenland.
If true, it… https://t.co/ouNUeAZwSH
— Kathleen Tyson (@Kathleen_Tyson_) January 19, 2026
Bloomberg’s US landing page shows that investors are already rattled:
The front page of the Financial Times. Do not miss the subhead of the top story; investors not reassured by Trump’s latest:
The Wall Street Journal, joining the pink paper, also has a live blog:
The fact that European leaders are not making more of a ruckus (which would usefully rattle Mr. Market’s further) is yet more proof of the over-abundant evidence of a lack of unity, resolve, and ability to plan their way out of a paper bag. They are running to Davos to try to reason with Trump. That is a demonstration of how insanely out of touch they are with Trump’s very clear belief that he can bully them successfully, as just did with the craven María Corina Machado over her Peace Prize. Did they not comprehend that every time they went to him thinking they could get him on board with more money and weapons and security guarantees and whatnot with Project Ukraine, they got at most some supportive noises that came to naught?
But having said that, the fact that ought-to-be vassal Zelensky is still in his post long after what should have been his sell-by date does demonstrate that even weakly-positioned parties can wage fairly effective delaying tactics against Trump. Remember when Scott Bessent showed up in Kiev demanding that Zelensky immediately sign the “raw earths” deal? Zelensky refused and managed to draw out the negotiations long enough so as to get something only moderately awful, as opposed to abjectly terrible. One strategy for the Europeans would be to at least go through the motions of negotiating, since odds are decent that the tariff authority that Trump is relying on to impose across-the-board tariffs will be ended or substantially curtailed by the Supreme Court. Fortune confirms this possibility in a fresh story, The U.S. Supreme Court could throw a wrench into Trump’s plan to take Greenland as soon as Tuesday:
The U.S. Supreme Court could rule on Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are illegal—and that would throw up a significant hurdle for his plan to acquire Greenland.
President Trump posted his latest threat to take over Greenland late last night on Truth Social: “Now it is time, and it will be done!!!”
Previously, on Saturday, he threatened to impose tariffs of 10%, on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland, rising to 25% on June 1, “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
But analysts noted this morning that the court is due to issue rulings on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. The expectation on Wall Street is that the court will rule that the president does not have the power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on routine international trade. If that happens, Trump’s threats could become meaningless, at least in the short-term.
“Threatened U.S. tariffs … may be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court,” UBS advised clients in a note this morning.
At ING, Carsten Brzeski and Bert Colijn said, “If the Supreme Court rules against all earlier IEEPA tariffs, Trump’s latest announcement [about Greenland] would be void, and he would have to find other tariffs. Something that would take more time.”
My impression was that this decision was not expected this early in the year, but Wall Street analysts get paid big bucks to stay on top of matters like this, so they probably do have a better reading on timing. But it’s not just a matter of “finding other tariffs”. The fallbacks are either sector-specific and require a Commerce Department study before imposition, or are much more limited in time and amount.
Jeff Rich argues that the Europeans have other cards to play. Note he has one error, in that he recommends revoking the 2025 trade pact with the US. In fact, it has not been ratified by the EU Parliament and that action has been put on hold due to the Greenland threat:
Europe has three potential responses to American pressure: economic, diplomatic and security responses. But all require European Union states deciding to stop accepting subordination to American unilateralism.
First, retaliatory tariff measures remain available. It can implement measures as proposed by President Macron using the Anti-Coercive Instrument of the EU. Europe might even revoke the coerced, disadvantageous trade agreement of 2025. In addition, Europe needs to recall that tariffs are an ineffective instrument of economic warfare. Trump’s Liberation Day proved a flop, defeated by combined international cooperation and strong resilience from China and India in particular. Tariffs ultimately represent American self-harm, demonstrating the limits of economic coercion. Do not interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake?
Second, diplomatic options include identifying the USA’s threats as another blatant breach of the UN Charter demanding consequences. Europe might stand with BRICS states defending improved global governance, ceasing decades of pandering to American defiance of international law.
Rich’s second suggestion sadly would likely require brain transplants or internal regime changes that won’t happen fast enough. Look how long it has taken Putin to get the message that Europe is not his friend and to reorient to the East. Admittedly Canada’s Mark Carney is now moving in that direction in his newly announced, wide-ranging economic pact with China, which many commentators saw as a diss to the US
From later in Rich’s discussion:
Third, security reorientation offers possibilities. This need not direct military conflict on Greenland land and waters, but restructuring European defence and foreign policy. Commentators who mock the small European military force sent to protect Greenland are missing the point. USA’s weakness is its dependence on European real estate for its global offensive military operations. For some critical matters, the USA needs the consent of the occupied, like any colonising power.
Another widely-held view is that the US has great leverage over Europe due to the intelligence it provides. Former intelligence officer Malcolm Nance, who has made an extended visit to Greenland, including meeting local officials, after Trump ramped up his campaign to take Greenland, argues that the US also depends on European-provided intel. He further contends that the logistics of an annexation would not be that easy. I wonder about the latter given the Venezuela raid.
The Nance reading is a mixed bag given that he also thinks dumping Treasuries would work, does not comprehend how weak the Article 5 NATO obligations are, and exhibits Putin/Russia derangement syndrome. But given his background and his recent fact-finding mission, we have hoisted the sections from a recent presentation that seem based on more specific knowledge and/or his recent fact-finding:
That being said, last year I spent a lot of time over 3 weeks on the ground and at sea in Greenland. I went to all of the major airports, went into the Arctic Circle to Ilulissat, took a ferry down the Greenland coast just as the ice flows were breaking up the first ferry that went from north to south in order to get a feel for all of the small fishing villages and ports that the ferry stopped in. The ferry is the only method of transportation in Greenland, in that most average Greenlanders can afford in the summer months. Aircraft are extremely expensive….
There are no connecting roads of the major towns throughout the country. None. So, you got to get there by boat or you got to get there by aircraft or, you know, in some shorter distances helicopter. That being said, the reason that I went to Greenland is as a good intelligence analyst, one, you cannot discuss a country terrain, its history, culture, people, or language without ever having been there, gone on the ground and investigated or at least studied those factors… I went there to meet government officials, people who were members of parliament, but I spent most of my time around the average Greenlander….
That being said, the only way that anyone could invade that country in the winter months, if they’re thinking about it, is to actually have to fly into one of the airports and do a forced takeover of those airports or drop airborne troops. But your soldiers will drop into inhospitable mountain terrain covered by ice with people that will not appreciate it….
Nance contends that Denmark merely invoking Article 4 (a preliminary to Article 5, there is precedent with Turkiye having done so with Greece over Cyprus) would have more ramifications than many recognize:
The problem is if Denmark ever invokes NATO article 4, there will be consequences that all of us will feel. One, insurance rates around the world will skyrocket in anticipation that invoking this means that Denmark feels that a conflict is very very possible. This is not going to be done on a whim. So many people, businesses and around the world will seek to limit their exposure particularly in merchant ships.
That’s because Denmark operates the largest merchant fleet in the world. Denmark itself may do what it’s doing now, which is call more exercises or deliberately move more forces into Greenland so that if the Donald Trump loses his mind and orders US special operations or airborne forces to jump into Greenland, they can make it very painful in deaths of US service members.
One thing that people tend to forget is that the United States is not, how can I put it? You cannot move forces magically, right? Physics, space, time, distance, all are factors. Even though you could theoretically fly from Washington DC to Nuuk, Greenland directly. Well, that’s if you know in a matter of five or you know five or 6 hours you that is if you could fly directly over Canada which is a NATO nation and we may find ourselves shut out of that.
So Denmark may move forces there in order to provide a deterrence to the United States and other NATO nations may go there in advance of a realistic threat. But Malcolm, all of that falls apart. The United States deploys special forces and airborne forces and starts seizing the airport at Nuuk, Kangerlussuaq and down at Qaqortoq which means that they have access to the top three bases. Malcolm, why won’t they just send troops all the way up to the space base in Pituffik? Because that base is 1,000 miles away from the capital of Nook. That’s how big Greenland is. So, you would actually have to fly past your objectives to get to a US base that borders Canadian airspace uh in order to bring troops there and it is not a good launching place.
Nance then argues that NATO members, above all Canada and the UK, could render the US blind by shutting off radar centers, ironically many of which are designed to protect the US from Russian attack.
Some other hardball moves:
Another thing that would happen is all intelligence relationships with the United States would cease to exist. They would shut off from all NATO nations because the United States is hostile. Human intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency officers would now be designated hostile intelligence agencies within NATO.
So they would be, you know, CIA station chiefs and other officers would either be detained or forced to leave the the 32 NATO nation countries. their assets and intelligence assets would have a very hard time communicating. Because another thing that would happen is consequence number four, US bases, US leased bases, shared relationships, landing rights, ports, seapports, airports of NATO nations would all close to the United States instantaneously.
But Malcolm, we have a 100,000 troops in NATO bases all around Europe. What would happen to them?
Well, most likely they would be encircled by the police forces of those nations and they would be told that they were going to arrange their transfer back to the United States through charter aircraft or technically they would become prisoners of their own base. This would also include US service member families who would probably be forced to get on civil airliners and fly back to the United States because a state of hostilities would exist between the US and NATO. US service members even though they may have weapons, equipment, and aircraft there will not be able to operate because they are not members of NATO. If they try, they can if aircraft try to take off without authorization like many other circumstances, they can be intercepted or attacked, forced down, or shot down.
As crazy as this sounds, you cannot just go onto a base and roll out with tanks in the middle of Europe because you don’t, one, you don’t have a lot of tanks. Two, all the fuel, water, electricity, power, and logistics comes from NATO. even whatever you have on that base is all you’re going to have. And most commanders will not do that. They will not follow orders to act as a fifth column or a military force inside a nation uh that was hosting them prior to that a few days ago. So, if the United States didn’t draw those forces down in advance of this, they’re stuck there and they could be considered prisoners of war or civilian detainees of NATO powers. It’s a fact.
Nance, a former Naval intelligence officer, returns to the chokehold that Europeans have over shipping:
And that leads to consequence number six. almost instantaneously um global shipping to the United States would end.
Now Malcolm, how can you make such a hyperbolic statement like that?
Simple. Europe runs the top six shipping companies in the world are based in Europe. And Malcolm, isn’t there something about Denmark that people should know? Why yes, there is. The number one shipping company in the world is Maersk shipping company. MSC. They are Danish and they are headquartered out of Copenhagen and they would refuse to move any shipping to the United States.
In fact, they would probably flee the United States and the Western Hemisphere for the length of time that this conflict goes on because there is an insurance risk to dealing with a country that lost its mind. and so would the other five companies and so would the number seventh company which is Chinese right people’s republic of China. The United States would find itself isolated also US equipment that is in Europe is never going back if the United States attacks Greenland because it has to be brought back by sea lift. Most of that sea lift is Danish so US forces would be put onto airliners flown back to the United States if they come to that agreement and all of that equipment would become the property of NATO or the host nation that has that base.
Nance later observes of US food comes from abroad, particularly seafood, and further adds that an option would be to close down all commercial flights to Europe.
Now admittedly Nance is a bit excited but his point hold generally, even if some of the specifics aren’t as solid as he thinks. Europe could tell Trump that they can resort to mutual assured economic destruction via shipping and flight restrictions if he does not back down over Greenland.
But of course they won’t. They seem unable to grasp that, as Michael Hudson has been describing, that the US is engaging in looting Europe. The Trump planned Greenland heist makes that undeniable. But as Aurelien has described long-form, “Europe” as in NATO and other European politics, have come to depend on the US as an organizing principle. One of the big purposes of NATO has been to keep peace in a region with a very long history of bloody fraternal relations. NATO and the EU (and remember a lot of EU activities involved the US, from treaties to financial crisis management the afore-mentioned intel sharing to standards-setting) are big career-advancing venues for elite bureaucrats and European politicians. Pulling that pole out of the tent is profoundly destabilizing, hence the intense reflexive move to keep the US in. It’s not about any Russian threat, it’s that moving forward without the US deeply involved would require massive changes that the mediocrities in charge can’t begin to work through, let alone manage.
So unless Europe gets very lucky and a Supreme Court ruling against Trump on tariffs knocks him back a bit, expect the Europeans to engage in a show of protest and then meekly try to haggle over price.
____
1 On top of the direct effect with retreating from US positions, there is a potential second-order effect, of US corporate exposure to European sales, which seems to be on the order of 10% to 15% of S%P 500 earnings. European boycotts of high profile US brands like Coca Cola have started, although by contrast, divorcing Microsoft would be a tall order for most users.
36 comments
Comments are closed.
UK approves China’s ‘mega’ embassy in London
https://www.ft.com/content/52c04197-4f6c-4a71-9c0f-82fc5eaecf24
Not archived yet.
”the UK has approved China’s application to build a “mega” embassy in London despite fierce opposition and concerns over espionage, after security officials said they had devised a range of protective measures….
”The diplomatic complex, close to the Tower of London, will be the largest Chinese embassy in Europe…
‘The approval of the embassy clears the way for Starmer to travel to Beijing next week….’
Oh, dear. The Embassy thus will be close to MI6 right at the bridge. That means when Russia finally sends a missile to hit it after Britain guides a missile from Ukraine to Russia, China’s embassy will be collateral damage. :)-
No, MI6 is at Vauxhall Bridge. Should be within Oreshnik’s CEP to distinguish the two!
The Chinese Embassy brouhaha is absurd. Watch out, it has… a basement! Nobody expects the Chinese Subterranean!
Wait till they see what cables pass through the US embassy (and presumably its own secret branch of the Northern Line) or the big radio tower the Russians used to have on a building on the hill in Highgate!
Who cares if the Chinese tap the cables? The encrypted conversations are secure. Aren’t they…?
Yes, the encrypted links are (probably) secure. But what good is that when the pointy haired bosses can’t be bothered to go through the PIA procedures to only talk over the secure comms and just pick up their phones and chat over SMS?
See Trump posting Macron’s DM: https://i.redd.it/1mnyt0s05jeg1.jpeg
The MI6 complex is not particularly close to the Tower of London and there are a few bends in the river between them. Assuming a non-nuclear strike with great precision but no fall out, not sure the Chinese complex would have that much to worry about. The Tate Gallery, palace of westminster (parliament) whitehall, downing street, national theatre, tate modern, old bailey, st pauls cathedral, the City, various bridges and rail stations to name a few obstacles, separate the two.
Amusing to speculate about what a US/Nato conflict might look like. Thanks!
Also it’s not exactly toasty in SC right now. How cold must it be up there in Greenland? The Germans were mocked for withdrawing their small force after a weekend but one report suggested they got a taste of the weather and left.
Finally this archived link to National Review (via Antiwar) brings up the obvious question of how Trump plans to annex territory without Congressional approval.
https://archive.ph/tFxWT
If the Supreme Court doesn’t shoot down Trump’s trial balloon then Congress must?
Surprising temperatures: 9 AM EST GREENLAND TEMP: 11˚. HIGHS IN THE 20S AND 30S FORECASTED FOR MOST OF WEEK. Temp in Pittsburgh 9 am EST: 6˚.
So if the trend keeps up another Trump Riviera? Surfboards instead of seal skin kayaks?
We viewers of PBS science shows know that the Arctic was once ice free.
I think that the Europeans will cave to Trump at Davos as they think that they are too weak to stop him. They are still obsessed with the Ukraine and some of their rhetoric on Greenland is seen through the lens of Putin and the Ukraine. So they will offer Trump a deal where the lean heavily on Denmark to agree to a Greenland sale and in return they get money, weapons and US security guarantees for the Ukraine. Who knows. Maybe Trump will uphold his side of the deal – maybe. There has been suggested prices for that sale on the order of $800 billion but Trump will never pay that much and is more likely to offer a box of trinkets worth $24. Personally I would outright refuse to sell out Greenland and the people there as they do not want to become US citizens. Make him send in the US military and do it the hard way. It will be then that Trump will discover that not all quagmires are made of mud but some can be made of snow and ice. Doing so would also put a spanner in the works of what is likely his next obsession – Iceland.
On one hand, you are right the vassals in charge of EU absolutely want to cave in and give Greenland to Trump de facto, on the other hand Donald wants to have it de jure, i.e. with the same color painted on map as of the US. Which may be too much of humiliation even for Europe ruling class. So my guess is that, unless he is stopped from within US via Supreme Court or something, he will take Greenland, EU will perform tantrum about it in front of European public, but in the end will not seriously interfere with the takeover nor it will do anything to really severe relations with US.
Most thoughts seem to be that US and EU are competing entities. Why is there a meeting in Davos? They are going to get their orders and instructions from their masters.
Time to implement the 25th Amendment?
Europe needs a King Michael (Kouros knows what I’m talking about.)
I might guess. Michael the Brave was the first ruler that unified the three principalities with romanians in 1600 (he also legalised serfdom in Moldova and Wallachia; in Transylvania, the Romanian majority was treated as such, with no legl rights). So you are alluding to a unification of Europe that would bring the population under peonage.
Or King Michael, the last king of Romania forced to abdicate in 1947. A pilot and car collector that got back some royal properties in Romania after 1990s and his spawn has no problem suckling at the tits of Romania with little to give back.
I myself would go for Vlad the Impaler… The real guy, the real deal…
On Ian Welsh’s site, commenter KT Chong has an interesting idea. Denmark should hold a referendum in Greenland offering a choice of staying with Denmark, going independent, or joining Canada. Denmark cannot defend Greenland but we must avoid a takeover by the U.S. using any means possible. Almost all of the people in Greenland are Inuit and speak Inuktitut, as do the people of the Canadian province of Nunavut. Families come and go between Canada and Greenland all the time. There are cultural, economic and familial ties between Greenland and Canada. Trump dare not invade Canada. We could guarantee Indigenous Rights. We could defend Greenland. We could keep the peace in the Arctic. All parties should consider this idea as a compromise to avoid war.
I appreciate your participation in the site and don’t mean to sound churlish. A referendum will have no, and I mean no, impact on what Trump does. It would be a stunt that would give the Greenlanders false hope.
But it will be a message to the American public that their republic’s dominion is not wanted, not needed, and fered. The message can be trumped, of course, but it will be bullhorned around the world… With the Russians and the Chinese first to recognize it and re-stated their absolute lack of desire to take over Greenland. Question mark to the world – Is Trump regime paranoid? Maybe a psychiatric ward is a better fit for them…
It’s a pity that, in years past, Denmark and the rest of the vassals of Europe were so compliant, so Russophobic, and so supportive of NATO and US aggression. Now that the empire is doing something they don’t like, they start crying. The hypocrisy does not go unnoticed. The US turned out to be the lawless aggressor, not Russia. (Larry Johnson says he does not like to engage in Schadenfreude, but…)
Denmark and the EU goes along with genocide, all go along with regime changes, go along with terrorizing and bombing foreign countries, go along with supporting the criminal regime in Kiev etc. Now they cry for the rule of law…
The American public does not care. Greenland has 50,000 people. There are indignities regularly imposed on the much larger and generally disenfranchised Native American population and the public yawns.
Do you remember the 2015 Greek bailout referendum? That crisis had gotten some notice in the US due to its possible impact on EU markets. We had pointed out (a very unpopular position) that that referendum was a stunt, since:
1. The bailout on which the vote was being held had expired, and the referendum could not create a time machine. It also violated the Greek constitution by having too short a period between initiation and the vote (2 weeks rather than the one-month minimum) and not properly organizing and funding bodies to articulate the reasons to vote for and against.
2. As we and at least one Greek MP had pointed out, the Syriza government had already agreed to an IMF memorandum in February, so they were actually not able to haggle about a bailout but over at most the fine points of the austerity program. The Greece-sympathetic media persistently failed to report this fundamental fact.
3. Despite #2, the US was briefly willing to intervene on behalf of Greece with the IMF, EU and ECB but they wanted Syriza to reform its tax system. The step the US wanted to see was getting the media companies to pay their substantial unpaid taxes, which the government could have forced by threatening to cancel licenses. Syriza refused to do that because it had depended on the support of these companies to get elected.
The ECB dropped the hammer after Greece did not agree to the bailout. The banking system froze. The economy came close to collapse in less than 3 weeks. The Greeks accepted a bailout that was worse than the one that was on offer before the referendum.
Leftie writers in small sites like Coutnerpunch wailed about this affair, but there was no meaningful notice, let alone upset in the US, despite the existence of a not-trivial Greek diaspora here.
The only referendum that could – not would – make a difference (and would need consultation with Russia first) would be a referendum to join the Russian Federation.
That would panic the empire, but it’s unclear in which direction. TACO or Grabbit.
I think the best Canada can do if the worst happens is offer asylum for Greenlanders. Winding up in Canada would almost certainly be better for them than whatever the US will have in store.
Ian Welsh also has this on his website:
European Leaders Realize They’ve Put Themselves In A Vise
It seems that EU leaders have realized that the US can squeeze them, not just with tariffs, but with natural gas supplies…
Truly a masterwork of Induced Dependency.
“That being said, the reason that I went to Greenland is as a good intelligence analyst, one, you cannot discuss a country terrain, its history, culture, people, or language without ever having been there, gone on the ground and investigated or at least studied those factors…”
Did Nance visit the US bases already there? (Not feeling a video at the moment).
While it doesn’t make the idea any better, the US military is familiar with the terrain.
There is one active base now, the Pituffik Space Base, with hardly any Americans there.
Congress could easily stop this by passing a joint resolution opposing annexation. The problem is that Congress as an institution resembles the European “democracies” in its lack of courage and integrity. The issue will be forgotten with the soon to start war with Iran which Congress will not approve or be consulted about.
Moon of Alabama suggests tariffs on services, where the US has a large surplus – get the tech bros to demand a pull back – just threatening likely would cause Mr Market to start the pop of the AI bubble, and that would panic the US powers that be.
If (a big if), Denmark forced Maersk to cease shipping to the US, that would bear strong similarity to China licensing rare earth exports, which, as far as I can assess, still remain in place, which induced a rapid TACO. Could Denmark do this without EU approval? I do not know, but pray that Danish citizens force their gov’t to evidence a spine.
Can the EUcrats recall that lebensraum has no limit?
Special VAT on US services. Double it to 42%. The Donald would love it!
Especially when the tech bros who he counts on for hundreds of millions for upcoming elections – start bitching at him. We see how he treats Miriam Adelson.
But the tech bros need to set up their libertarian paradise by using the force of a sovereign government’s military against another country! No contradictions at all there.
Some notes lifted from a CFR article, “The Trump Administration’s Push for Greenland: What to Know” by Diana Roy and Jonathan Masters 01/16/2025
https://www.cfr.org/articles/greenlands-independence-what-would-mean-us-interests
Greenland is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark because in 1979 Denmark granted it home rule. In 2009, Denmark passed the Act on Greenland Self-Government, significantly expanding the island’s authority over its domestic affairs, including the police, courts, and coast guard. Denmark still maintains control over Greenland’s foreign affairs, defense policy, and monetary policy, providing an annual subsidy of approximately $600 million.
Ironically, the last purchase by the US of foreign territory was the Woodrow Wilson administration’s 1917 purchase of the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark—primarily for military reasons—for $25 million.
The United States could legally acquire Greenland with the consent of the Danish government, which would also hinge on the agreement of Greenland’s self-ruling parliament. (The United States made such a purchase when it bought Alaska from Russia in 1867.) Some experts say Washington could also pursue a Compact of Free Association with Greenland, establishing a relationship where the territory is self-governing but still closely tied to the United States for economic assistance and defense. The United States has these treaties already in place with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. However, such a deal would still require approval from both the Greenlandic and Danish governments.
Greenland is covered under Nato’s security guarantees. However, it’s not a member of the EU. The majority of the population are Indigenous Inuit, are EU citizens as well as Danish nationals.
In recent years, Greenland has witnessed a growing independence movement. Under the Self-Government Act, the island can gain independence via a referendum with approval from the Danish Parliament. In March 2025, Greenland’s center-right Demokraatik party—which advocates for a gradual approach to independence—won the island’s parliamentary election, underscoring residents’ desire for greater sovereignty.
Of course, if you want to access to the arctic’s trade routes and natural resources, you’re going to need icebreaking ships. China has four icebreaking vessels, the US has one, and Russia 40.
The strong turn to Asia, away from the US, would probably be smart move regardless of whether it dissuaded Trump on Greenland or not. But smart has not been a recently used description of European leadership, so you’re probably right and this opportunity will go wanting.
I like Cory Doctorow’s idea of simply removing the anti-circumvention legislation that was forced down their throats by the US Trade Rep at the threat of tariffs. The US is applying tariffs anyhow, so, why not? Remove those restrictions and allow your nation’s creative minds to start creating add-ons and workarounds for all of the US-based garbage that people are being fed. The market for this is likely huge and your citizens get access to improved goods and services (like John Deere products that can’t be bricked by JD and can be repaired by farmers, or Facebook wrappers that actually show you just the feeds you actually have an interest in, etc.). The US would feel this approach right in the old crypto wallet, which means it might actually make a real impact.
I like the idea of an EU withdrawal of shipping service to the USA. It would however be fabulously economically damaging for the carriers concerned. Maersk et al. would require compensation for not sailing.
It would also be tantamount to a blockade of the USA, given they have no alternative merchant fleet. Given the Japanese precedent, this might provoke something truly foolish, I fear. Although, self-sufficient in basics as she is, perhaps the USA is ready for a period of bracing autarky? Bring out the Napa Valley Champagne and the Texas Hamburgers and take a victory lap in the Chevy….
And in return the US could blockade the EU by stealing their ships.
Don’t think we will or want to go there because the potential for escalation is very high at that point.
This would never happen. If the Europeans threatened it and looked serious (na ga happen) the markets would totally tank and Trump would back off. The reaction would make the Liberation Day swoon look like a walk in the part.
Rather than Greenland annexing Mexico would make more sense. I have yet to meet a Mexican who thinks they would be better off under the Mexican, as opposed to the American oligarchs. Vast swaths of Mexico are home to the elderly and the younger generations are in the US. Just drive through Michoacan and look around. Extending American property law and the 5 freeway to Cabo San Lucas would turbocharge the economies. There are plenty of natural resources. The US could learn how their national health care system works and expand it. The UAW could unionize the auto plants (now paying 3 bucks per hour with full access to the North American market.). The Teamsters could organize. The only people who would lose a little would be the wealthy Mexican oligarchs who can always retreat to their lily pads in Miami, New York, Santa Barbara and Dallas. Where I work the lingua franca is Spanish. Again how many Hispanic Texans regret that they are not living under Mexican rule? Many millions have already voted with their feet.
Re-posting the link provided by ChrisRUEcon of the speech given by Canada’s PM at Davos:
Read the full transcript of Carney’s speech to World Economic Forum
https://globalnews.ca/news/11620877/carney-davos-wef-speech-transcript/
No names were named in this speech, but between this speech and the following trade deal, no one has to guess as to which superpower Canada’s leadership is worried about:
Canada strikes tariff deal with China as global trade moves further from U.S.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/livestory/canada-china-electric-vehicles-canola-trade-deal-carney-xi-9.7048058
I stand amazed watching what Trump has been able to do to America’s relationships to it’s close allies. The on the ground reality is that Russia has not beat Ukraine, it has beaten the combined military might of the whole West, and China’s industrial capacity is likewise humbling the combined West. This may not be the best time to make it abundantly clear that America’s former allies are effectively on their own. The current EU elite are an amazing bunch of toadies, and will probably cave to Trump, but the non-toadie allies are going to make serious moves to protect themselves. The end result to America becoming the most untrustworthy of the superpowers will have serious blow back. This is accelerating the behavior that created BRICS, not defusing it.
(I had this comment done earlier, but I think my own fooling around while posting it, made it disappear. Oops!)