FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The Greenland crisis is a warning to Europe: The alliance with the US is no longer secure
At Davos, Europe expected another verbal outburst from Donald Trump, but the US president appeared more restrained than usual. He demanded the “right, title and ownership” of Greenland, but stopped short of threatening tariffs, ruled out the use of force and then welcomed a “new framework” and the possibility of an agreement with Denmark.
American allies felt (temporary) relief. Because, apparently, it was not a sincere withdrawal, but a tactical maneuver. Trump has coveted Greenland for years. And the disparaging way in which he spoke of NATO in the same sentence should alarm every European capital.
The Greenland crisis offers several important lessons for America’s allies. First: Trump backs down only when pressured, but without abandoning long-term goals. Second: his narrow, pessimistic vision of the world, coupled with his arbitrary rewriting of history, has undermined the trust that once underpinned American alliances. And third: any clash with Trump has the potential to turn into an existential crisis.
Europe was lucky this time, because Greenland, in essence, has little strategic value for the US under current conditions. But Trump is right when he says that the Arctic will become a contested zone with melting ice and increased international shipping. The US has plans to deploy its future “Golden Dome” missile defense system there. If Greenland were American territory, neither Russia nor China would dare set foot there.
But in fact, the US already has a military base in Greenland that serves as a deterrent to any aggressor. In the event of an attack, Denmark and its European allies would have a strong interest in defending it. With existing treaties and the new framework being discussed, America can achieve whatever it wants without having to annex the island. Coloring the map, in this case, brings no real benefit.
This logic helped convince Europeans that the cost of such a conflict would be much greater for the United States. Trump's threats of tariffs were met with warnings of retaliation from several European countries. Markets immediately sensed the risk of a trade war accompanied by a security crisis. American public opinion does not support such a costly purchase. Under strong European pressure, even the US Congress showed a rare willingness to stand up to Trump.
The big lesson for Europe is clear: to force the American president to back down, you have to convince him that he will pay dearly. Until now, most European leaders have treated Trump with servility, interspersed with the occasional faint remark. This time they came out stronger, and it worked.
But the good news stops there. In his Davos speech, Trump spoke openly about “ownership” of Greenland, which means he could bring back the threat of tariffs, or even the use of force, to increase pressure. Even if he doesn’t, and the US-Denmark reach a new agreement without changing sovereignty, Europe should listen carefully to the language used by Trump: it showed a dangerous disdain for Europe and the transatlantic alliance.
Trump said the US has paid “100%” of NATO spending and received nothing in return. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed that America has spent $22 trillion more than European “freeloaders” on defense since 1980. His administration’s security strategy warns that Europe risks “civilizational extinction” due to immigration – and may no longer be a reliable ally.
This is a gross distortion of NATO’s history and of today’s European reality. Yes, Europe has spent less on defense since the Cold War. But during it, it was the fence that stopped Soviet expansion and protected democratic values. And currently, most countries are significantly increasing military spending, partly because of Trump’s rhetoric, but mainly because of the direct threat from Russia.
NATO has worked because it was built on shared benefits and shared values. The only time Article 5 (collective defense) has been invoked was to help the United States after 9/11. Proportionately, Denmark lost more troops in Afghanistan than the United States itself. Europe provides America with important military bases, such as the one in Ramstein, Germany, and supports American interests, including in the Arctic.
Unfortunately, Trump is unlikely to change his belief that allies are a burden and that shared values are for the “naive.” This will surely lead to more clashes, whether over Greenland or something else. Therefore, America’s allies, in Europe and beyond, must prepare for a world where they are alone. That starts with preserving what remains of NATO. Because building real power takes years, and Trump is in a hurry.
The problem is that Trump believes America holds all the cards, because its European and Asian allies have more to lose from a breakup than the US. And he is not entirely wrong. If the US were to withhold arms supplies to Ukraine or block intelligence, it would increase the risk of Ukraine’s loss and invite future Russian aggression. Europe and Asia depend on the US for defense, and the US provides 40% of NATO’s capabilities.
But Europe also has significant leverage. It is a market for more than $1 trillion in American goods and services. It provides key technologies for chip manufacturing, telecom equipment, lenses, aircraft, and more. European intelligence services, especially British ones, are a valuable resource for the US.
Greenland is just the tip of the iceberg
Europe should warn the American public about the hostile world that Trump is creating. If allies no longer trust America, Germany, Japan, Poland, and South Korea could start an arms race, even nuclear weapons. Such proliferation would undermine US power and limit its diplomatic influence. China and Russia will not accept the limits of influence that Trump imagines, and this could lead to a war from which the US cannot stand aside.
Europe must make clear the true costs of Trump's adventures, not only to European security but also to American well-being. Investors don't want to lose money, voters don't want sacrifices, politicians don't want to be overthrown.
America’s alliances may not survive a president who sees only short-term interests and despises partnership. Europe, meanwhile, risks being torn apart from within, as each country seeks its own deal with an aggressive America. From abroad, Putin and Xi Jinping will seek to undermine this unity with constant provocations.
Decades of American defense have spoiled Europeans. They were more concerned with welfare than power. But those days are over. European leaders must try to slow the erosion of the transatlantic alliance, but at the same time, prepare for the day when NATO no longer exists. / Adapted from “Pamphlet” by “The Economist”
Lini një Përgjigje