The crisis over Greenland has been averted for now, and European leaders may have learned a vital lesson in how to handle Donald Trump, according to an analysis by The Atlantic.
While the immediate threat has subsided, the events of the past week demonstrate the high stakes of an ongoing debate: Should Europe take a conciliatory approach toward Trump, or should it stand firm in the face of threats?
The Carrot and the Stick: A Dual Approach to Diplomacy
The lesson Europe is likely to draw from the Greenland affair is that it must do both. Europe needs diplomats who know how to flatter Trump, but who also must hide a steel fist within a velvet glove.
If European leaders offer only praise, Trump will ignore them when it suits him. Break existing deals and take whatever he can. If, however, they show only toughness, they risk provoking him to withdraw from NATO or dismantle the transatlantic alliance.
Trump’s Tactical Pivot at Davos
This dynamic was clearly illustrated recently. Only a few days ago, Trump refused to rule out the use of force to take over Greenland and threatened to impose tariffs on eight European countries.
Later, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump launched a sharp attack on Europe.
“If it weren’t for us, you’d all be speaking German, and maybe a little Japanese,” he said.
He repeated the claim that “no country or group of countries is in a position to secure Greenland except the United States.” “It is our territory,” he asserted. Nevertheless, he renounced the use of force, stating that he wished to acquire Greenland through “urgent negotiations.”
This was seen as a major concession, yet it raised new questions: What happens if Denmark refuses to transfer ownership? Does force return as an option? Only an hour after the speech, Trump withdrew the tariff threat and announced a “framework deal.”
While reports suggested the U.S. might gain sovereignty over military bases, European officials have denied this was part of the agreement, according to The Atlantic.
Why Danish Diplomacy Won the Greenland Standoff
If the framework holds, it will be a triumph for Danish diplomacy. Copenhagen has offered cooperation on most policy demands while maintaining two strict red lines: Denmark would not compromise on Greenland’s territorial integrity nor on the right of its inhabitants to self-determination.
In contrast, many other European leaders responded to Trump’s bullying with almost unconditional concessions.
Mark Rutte, as the head of NATO, even referred to Trump as Europe’s “daddy.”
Such softness invites mockery. Yet it let Trump claim wins while Europe secured NATO and vital arms for Ukraine.
The Economic “Bazooka” and Financial Market Pressure
Denmark’s refusal to bend forced Trump’s hand. He had almost no options left.
Other European states also raised the potential cost of aggression. The EU is prepared to impose tariffs worth $93 billion. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron discussed the “European bazooka”, an Anti-Coercion Instrument designed to respond to economic bullying.
Financial markets exerted quiet but decisive pressure. EU and NATO allies control over $3.31 trillion in U.S. debt—triple China’s share. Rising bond yields fueled fears of a U.S. bond sell-off if Trump escalated.
Furthermore, the idea of taking over Greenland is deeply unpopular in the U.S. 75 percent of Americans oppose such a move.
J.D. Vance’s Advice for a More Independent Europe
The Greenland crisis encapsulated Europe’s fears regarding the collapse of the NATO alliance. While the immediate crisis is averted, Trump remains an unpredictable negotiator, The Atlantic concludes. To prevent future blackmail, European leaders might consider advice from an unexpected source: J.D. Vance.
“I think many European countries were right about our invasion of Iraq,” Vance said last year.
“Frankly, if the Europeans had been a bit more independent and a bit more willing to stand up, maybe we would have saved the whole world from the strategic disaster that was the American invasion of Iraq.”
“I don’t want the Europeans to just do what the Americans tell them,” Vance added. “I don’t think that’s in their interest, and I don’t think it’s in ours.”
