Two weeks after the U.S. military ousted Maduro in Venezuela, the White House seemed to be gripped by an overconfidence. President Trump has turned his attention from the Caribbean all the way to the Arctic Circle, with his sights set on Greenland.
On January 14, Secretary of State Rubio and Vice President Vanse met with representatives from Denmark and Greenland in Washington, D.C. The U.S. side bluntly demanded the "transfer" of Greenland's sovereignty, citing the need to contain China and Russia. The Danish representative could only respond with diplomatic language, "agreeing to the differences."
Three days later, eight European countries announced that they would send troops to the area around Greenland to show their stance. This morning, Trump immediately signed an executive order to impose a 10% tariff on goods imported into the United States from eight NATO allies, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, starting February 1, and threatened to raise it to 25% in June.
Faced with the most severe ally crisis since World War II, according to The Economist , NATO can only adopt a three-pronged tactic of "cooling down, deterring, and diverting" in an attempt to find a way out of the cracks in NATO's fifth principle.
Weaken "everything except territory"
Europe's primary strategy at present is to dilute the US's motivation to acquire sovereignty through deep cooperation. The core logic is: since the White House's rationale is to contain China and Russia, Europe should provide a more efficient alternative than "buying territory."
The "Arctic Sentinel" mission: The Council on Foreign Relations revealed that Europe has proposed this joint operation aimed at strengthening intelligence and logistical sharing in the Arctic region and proactively alleviating Trump's anxieties about Chinese and Russian infiltration.
Functional alternatives: By enhancing the effectiveness of existing defense protocols, it can be demonstrated that sovereignty change is not a necessary condition for strategic security.
The debate centered on the status quo: the European side emphasized that the US military has had permanent rights to use Thule Air Base in Greenland since 1951, arguing, "Since the US has been getting the milk for free, why buy the whole cow?"
Military and political signals to deter the Arctic Circle
However, if diplomatic rhetoric fails to mitigate the damage, Europe needs to demonstrate its position through limited deterrence to prevent the White House from viewing Greenland as an asset that can be disposed of at will.
Eight European nations have announced a joint deployment of small troops to the area surrounding Greenland. While the size is insufficient to rival the US military, the political message is crystal clear: Greenland is not an asset for sale.
Diplomatic defense: The Danish representative in Washington insisted on the position of "agreeing to differences" but refused to make any substantial concessions on the issue of sovereignty.
Shifting focus from geopolitics to finance and supply chains
Meanwhile, Europe is attempting to shift the focus from territorial expansion to rational economic risk assessments, using pressure from Wall Street and global markets to cool down the White House.
A trillion-dollar "cold investment": Foreign media estimates suggest that the acquisition of Greenland, including infrastructure costs, could amount to a staggering $1 trillion, with a payback period of decades. The European side is attempting to make American voters realize that this is a high-stakes gamble that will strain the national treasury.
Supply chain backlash: With the February 1st tariff deadline approaching, once the 10% tariff is implemented, cross-border supply chains for automobiles, luxury goods, and machinery will be the first to be affected. European exporters may be forced to move some production lines to North America to avoid costs, and Wall Street will begin to calculate the risk of downward revisions to profits.
The bet between the two parties
The stakes in this game are not just Greenland's strategic and economic value, but a crucial battle to uphold the Western order. If the tariffs are indeed implemented on February 1st, the rift in the North Atlantic will spread from politics to global financial reports, and what the market fears most is that the rift will silently widen in the dead of night... and then it will be ordinary people who suffer.
