Yesterday, Trump shocked Nato allies with a threat this weekend to impose tariffs on Denmark and a range of other Nato allies if they refuse to cede Greenland to the US. In response, the former Danish prime minister and Secretary-General of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told the Financial Times that: “Since childhood, I have considered the United States as the natural leader of the Free World. I’ve even spoken about the US as the world’s policeman… Now we see the United States use a language that’s pretty close to the gangsters that they should control in Moscow, Beijing etc.”

He added that Trump is using Greenland “as a weapon of mass distraction” from the real threats like Russia’s war in Ukraine. His words show the pitiful position European governments now find themselves in, and the degree to which this is their own fault.

Firstly, it is now clear that Trump is not using the demand for Greenland as a “distraction”. He sees its acquisition as an absolute personal priority.

It’s because of this that we know if Trump sticks to this demand, no compromise is possible. When announcing the tariff threat, Trump cited the need for a US missile defense system — his proposed “Golden Dome” — as a key justification for acquiring Greenland. But thanks to a treaty between Denmark and the US, there are early warning systems in northern Greenland, and Copenhagen has indicated its willingness to upgrade these. The same is true of Trump’s demand for US mining concessions.

This is not, however, the real point behind the acquisition of Greenland. Trump’s real goal is the personal glory of having added 840,000 square miles of territory to the United States. This would, yet again, show personal and US “strength” by bullying other states into submission — even when these states are America’s closest and most loyal allies.

European leaders like Rasmussen may be forgiven for not predicting the extent of Trump’s obsession with Greenland, even if he first raised the question of acquiring it in 2017, during his first presidency. But two features of US foreign policy have long been evident. Since the invasion of Iraq, it has been clear that Europe’s reliance on the US entails compromises on international legality — a principle the EU had made central to its own legitimacy. Moreover, since the question of Ukrainian Nato membership and Russia’s opposition to it surfaced in 2007, Europe should have recognized that any renewed confrontation with Russia would risk making that dependence total.

If Denmark is forced to sell Greenland under US military pressure, and Denmark’s Nato allies refuse to oppose this strongly, then Europe will be humiliated. Alternatively, strong action would entail sending forces to Greenland that are visibly capable of putting up some sort of a fight. This would not be to win, but to show that they are willing to suffer any consequences. This would surely force any sane elements in the US state and military to ask themselves if they are really willing to kill other Nato soldiers.

To make this warning credible, it is essential to be able to reinforce the Danish premier’s threat that a US attack would “mean the end of Nato”. It would therefore be necessary to state that this would entail not just the end of the alliance, but the closure of the bases America relies on for force projection in Asia and support for Israel.

None of this is possible, though, unless Europe and Britain can make peace with Russia over Ukraine. This could involve abandoning the plan to send a European “reassurance force” to Ukraine, both because it is an insurmountable obstacle to peace and because — as Keir Starmer and others have indeed stated — such a force would be completely dependent on US guarantees of support. A fantasy? Perhaps. But barely a year ago, the idea of the US threatening to attack a Nato ally would also have seemed an unbelievable fantasy too.

---

Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.

lieven_anatol

---