Britain and Europe appear hopelessly weak in the face of Donald Trump’s threats to Greenland.
European efforts to quell the erratic U.S. president’s desire for the island have backfired.
Trump has now warned that he will impose tariffs on Britain and its European allies unless Denmark sells him Greenland.
This is a classic example of “escalation dominance,” in which the superior military force in a conflict uses its influence to increase or decrease pressure.
So what happens next in the Greenland crisis? Here are four of Europe’s main options…
1. Appeasement policy
Which is more important to Europe’s NATO allies: the U.S. security umbrella or Denmark’s sovereignty over an Arctic island with about 57,000 inhabitants? So far, no European leader has been willing to answer this painful question.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said Europe is too weak to deal with threats from Russia and China in the Arctic.
He said: “Europe is showing weakness and the United States is showing strength. The president believes that it is impossible to enhance security if Greenland does not become part of the United States.”
Europe desperately needs Trump, not only for its own security but also for Ukraine. Mainland China’s leaders have embraced trade tariffs, arguing the deals are necessary to keep the U.S. president on side.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant believes the world would be safer if Greenland became part of the United States – Getty
They also told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to consider conceding territory to Russia as part of Trump’s efforts to end the long war.
For those who have been calling on Europe – including the UK – to show some courage and stand up to Trump, Greenland’s abandonment will not come as a shock.
But without Washington’s security umbrella, Vladimir Putin could exploit the breakdown in U.S.-European relations to invade NATO members.
Trump revealed more about his motivations in a letter to Jonas Gahr Støreon (pictured below) on Monday. Will he send aid to regions unfortunate enough to be hit by Russia?
Most would advise against it, as the president has chosen to sit back and play mediator between Moscow and Europe.
2. Trade war
The EU is drawing up a list of retaliatory tariffs worth around €93bn (£81bn) on US products such as Kentucky bourbon whiskey.
However, Brussels has previously threatened to impose tariffs, preferring to ease tensions rather than risk a costly trade war with the United States.
Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer does not want to hit the US with tit-for-tat tariffs from the UK.
Last year, Trump imposed a 15% tariff on EU goods and a 10% tariff on British products. Europe is hardening after Trump failed to retaliate for his weakness last year.
The EU lacks hard power, but it does have a single market of some 460 million consumers and new, untested trade defense tools.
Sir Keir Starmer has so far been less vocal about retaliatory tariffs than French and German leaders – Getty
The EU’s anti-coercion tool – the EU’s “trade bazooka” – is primarily designed to counter China’s economic extortion of EU member states.
Now French President Emmanuel Macron, backed by Germany, wants Brussels to use it to exclude U.S. companies from the lucrative single market.
Denmark also stated that Europe will not be “blackmailed” by the United States. But deploying rocket launchers could trigger a full-scale trade war that the West cannot afford.
Opposing the rocket launcher is Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister and the European Union’s “Trump Whisperer.”
Macron seems keen to launch tariff “bazookas”, but in the past the EU has made concessions before pulling the trigger – Reuters Chinese
Ms. Meloni criticized Mr. Trump over Greenland but said the rocket-propelled grenade went too far and blamed the current crisis on a misunderstanding of the military mission.
A “bazooka” could be used if a population-weighted majority of the EU’s 27 member states approves. But using it requires as much political support and public solidarity as possible.
EU divisions could delay or dilute decisive action ahead of a meeting of EU leaders on Thursday and favor negotiations with Trump at this week’s Davos summit.
Second’
‘
3. Real war
When Argentina occupied the Falklands in 1982, their invasion force was 10 times larger than the detachment of Royal Marines stationed there, who were soon flown home.
Intelligence gathered in Buenos Aires led them to believe that the British would not attempt to reclaim the territory, but this proved to be a major miscalculation.
A U.S. invasion of Greenland could happen in a similar way, but with one key difference: Denmark and its European NATO allies have no interest in going to war with the United States.
If Trump decides to send troops to occupy Greenland, Danish troops will have a hard time standing up to thousands of U.S. troops – Shutterstock
The U.S. military can easily land 10,000 troops on Arctic islands in an hour.
Perhaps a token shot or two would be fired in anger, but the Danish troops would soon return to Copenhagen after a battle lasting several minutes.
Greenland will soon be recognized as a U.S. territory, and Europeans will have to swallow their pride and continue any day-to-day business with Washington.
Meanwhile, authoritarian leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping will feel emboldened in their new imperial land grabs.
4. European rearmament
Dependence on US security makes the UK and the rest of Europe hopelessly vulnerable to Trump’s “escalated dominance”.
Since the end of the Cold War, Europe, including Britain, has neglected defense spending while ignoring warnings from Trump in office and Putin’s seizure of Crimea.
Now they must play catch-up and try to meet NATO defense spending targets at a time when public budgets are very tight.
Optimists point to how the European Union has recovered from a shaky start to the coronavirus pandemic to become a major vaccine manufacturer and exporter.
Danish Navy inspection ship HDMS Vaedderen sees off off Greenland as country responds to Trump’s remarks – Shutterstock
Germany has vowed to overhaul its long-neglected military; France and Poland have increased defense spending and Britain is seeking to participate in the EU’s arms loan scheme.
Experts say Europe could build a credible deterrent against Russia within five years, but many believe true military self-sufficiency will take decades.
There are large gaps in long-range strike capabilities, logistics, ammunition, air defense and missile defense that will take a long time to fill.
Try full access to The Telegraph for free now. Unlock their award-winning website and essential news app, plus helpful tools and expert guidance on your money, health and holidays.