However the public is much more ready to break clean of US and endure the perceived short term pain for the perceived dignity and opportunities.
Screw this up too and EU will lose all its mainstream pro-US politicians and they will all be replaced with extremes as long as those extremes promise getting rid of USA.
Whatever Trump is doing its going to be as successful as his private business ventures.
Europeans are vengeful, Tesla never recovered from Musks behavior. USA will also not recover, all those 2T market capitalization companies will have to start justifying those valuations without the EU market and likely without the rest of the world too because it will only accelerate China's influence in the other parts of the world as US will cement its position as dangerous imperialist that better stay away.
All that capital that US has will mean nothing at war time, intellectual properties and royalties will cease to be valuable. If the EU rich flee to USA they will not be taking the factories with them, extremist war time governments will take away their properties.
Relationships will be forged without US influence, working with Russia and Iran for energy and working with China will become much simpler as many of the issues between EU and these nations stem from USA's grip on Europe.
It doesn't make sense to cut ties with colonialists, only to buddy up to other colonialists. Instead, the remaining countries of the free world must urgently unite and do everything to protect the rule of law. And also possibly work with likeminded people in slipping democracies to prevent further destruction and harm.
I don't believe that there is going to be much cooperation with Russia, unless it will stop being imperialistic itself, which is unlikely. However Iran and China are on EU's naughty list only because USA want it to be so.
Europe (Denmark) has forces in Greenland currently.
But Europe as a whole also has no chance to defend Greenland no matter what they do if the US really decides to take it by force.
Europe has inadequate long distance power-projection to put up any kind of a fight there (if not being assisted by the US, which of course it wouldn't be in this case).
I'm American, but this reply certainly isn't me being jingoistic or pro-American. I fucking hate what we are both doing and threatening under Trump with every fiber of my being and I think it ultimately is going to make America a far weaker failed empire within a world that is deeply unstabilized for no reason other than to stroke the ego of a malignant narcissist with no understanding of second order consequences.
Therefore, if Europe sent enough forces and indicated they would actually fight instead of capitulating, that would probably be their best bet at preventing Greenland from being annexed. Realistically, this needs to be more than whatever tiny(?) amount of forces Denmark already has there. They'd probably need assistance from other countries. You essentially need to be reading headlines about warships from some European countries heading to Greenland for this to have an effect, IMO.
Then expands its existing bases without telling or asking for the rubber stamp
Then starts mining
They don’t need to fire a shot, and Denmark isn’t going to fire first.
Let me outline one possible way I think Greenland/Denmark/Europe could proceed here that doesn't require just capitulating:
- Station more forces right now to make it clear they would defend Greenland militarily. Get as many NATO countries to join as possible. Probably better to stay closer to their own civilians instead of going near American bases, I imagine. This is critical so that nobody gets a chance to claim they lost by default due to not even meaningfully attempting to defend the territory.
- If the US starts expanding its military activity... either ignore them and wait out this administration, or file a lawsuit in the US (and possibly elsewhere, wherever feasible) and see how courts respond, if for no reason than to put everyone on the official record. [1]
- If the US starts sending civilians to mine or whatever... send their own unarmed law enforcement to stop them, probably while livestreaming the whole thing globally. [2] File additional lawsuits every step of the way. [1]
- Wait for US courts to respond. Appeal immediately and get SCOTUS on the record. [1] If the response is negative then proceed to attempt enforcement under their own laws.
- If US law enforcement fires their first shot -- send their own armed law enforcement to respond. File more lawsuits as much as possible at every step and wait for courts to respond.
- If US military gets involved and starts firing -- send military (their own + as many other NATO countries as would be willing to join) to respond accordingly. Yes it will risk some lives, but there's a decent chance the US won't shoot NATO allies. The whole bet seems to be that there will be zero physical resistance to begin with. And if they do respond, it's important for everyone to actually see that.
If they play their cards right, I actually think it's quite likely Greenland/Denmark/Europe would win this fight, quite possibly before anyone gets injured. But they really need to play by the books and exhaust every single peaceful avenue available to them before letting combat power decide the matter.
FWIW, I can think of other ideas too. But I think this should be plenty enough to get my point across that this isn't a necessary loss.
[1] For whatever it's worth, the current US administration is still engaging the judicial system. As insulting as it might feel to other countries' sovereignties, utilizing this is currently their best option. They need to get the US on the record in domestic court about exactly which laws it recognizes and which ones it's willing to break. There needs to be zero ambiguity to everyone, especially Americans themselves, who exactly is breaking which laws in whose name.
[2] It needs to be on undeniable record who started whatever ends up happening.
Internet cables will be cut if that's necessary to get rid of US tech. Bank accounts will be frozen, data centers taken over and no one will pay attention to naysayers and those who preach profits and business opportunities.
Trump and anything he stands for is just too repulsive for anyone in Europe already. Europe's relatively weak startup culture doesn't come from regulations, it's not like Italians demand lab grown meat and the French demand long working hours but their usurper doesn't allow them. It's quite the opposite, Europeans demand a life with dignity above everything else and Trump is the antithesis of it.
US being the biggest contributor of NATO, effectively NATO would be no more.
Man the Russians intelligence services are good. Their subtle plays in the US politics are close to bringing them the world order they have always wanted.
"The Parties agree that [...] if such an armed attack occurs, each of them [...] will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary [...]"
Each party gets to act however it deems necessary. Which could be, you know, "tweet angrily." Or "do literally nothing."
I'm not convinced this would be the automatic result, but it would certainly be the opening shots of a new world war, with the US as the bad guys this time.
Conflicts between NATO members like happened in the past between Greece and Turkey four times, while they were both part of NATO, have never triggered Article 5. The alliance is built to deter external attacks, not wars among its own members.
In practice, after such a move, you can be sure that not a single ASML machine would ever be sold to the U.S. again.
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...
> if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ... will assist the Party ... attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,
"Each" and "individually" imply to me that even if the US decides they could meet their Art 5 obligation by sending a strongly worded letter to themselves, every other NATO member, invoking the right of collective self-defence, should forthwith assist DK with armed force.
"All decisions in NATO are taken by consensus, which means all NATO member countries must agree unanimously to take decisions."
Its not automatic. After 9/11, Article 5 was not automatic. The Council met and unanimously agreed that the attacks qualified as an Article 5 case. Only then did each member decide how to assist.
In 1974 both Turkey and Greece were already NATO member, and consultations were made under article 4. Actually Greece got pissed off and did not leave NATO completely, but left the NATO command for a few years.
"...In 1974 due to the Cyprus crisis, Greece withdrew military units from NATO forces in the Southern Mediterranean, over threats of invasion of Cyprus by fellow NATO member Turkey. Later in 1974 due to the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces, Greece withdrew from the NATO military command..."
Luckily there's also Article 42.7 TEU, then:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/...
Here is a recent picture, taken during discussions about Greenland: https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/72/d7/aa/c5/72d7aac5-be14-...
You probably recognise the woman on the left, the PM of Denmark.
You may not recognise the dude on the right, but he comes from a country that gave us the motto which vocally expresses the solidarity he is physically expressing in the pic: "all for one, and one for all"
If we may talk brass tacks, he also has several boomers that could lob a bus or a few at the new White House ballroom. Half an hour flight time if they didn't bother to leave their home base; shorter than that if they fired from somewhere in the Atlantic: https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/17070508372...
It will only be when the US rolls the tanks into Quebec will Europe do something.
What has happened before will happen again.
“How important the expansion of our people’s living space (Lebensraum) was…” - Adolf Hitler (1939)
“What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is the basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark? - Stephen Miller (2026)
“The boundaries of the year 1914 mean nothing at all for the German future.” - Adolf Hitler (1939)
“We live in a world governed by force, power and might.” - Stephen Miller (2026)
“The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused.” - Hermann Göring
“No one is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” - Stephen Miller (2026)
“I have only to step in, and they will collapse. The Western democracies will not move.” - Adolf Hitler (1938)
“For us to guarantee security in the Arctic… Greenland must be part of the United States.” - Stephen Miller (2026)
“If the German people are to survive, they must secure the land necessary for their existence.” - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
“We’re a superpower…we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.” - Stephen Miller (2026)
“A great people must secure the territory necessary for its future.” - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
“The future of the free world depends on America asserting ourselves and our interests without apology.” - Stephen Miller (2026)
“I will proceed with my plans even if the whole world were to oppose me.” - Adolf Hitler (1939)
“We’d be interested in Greenland. I know Denmark owns it, but they can’t say no.” - Donald Trump (2019)
“Germany has the right to unite with her own people, and no power can deny that.” - Adolf Hitler (1938)
“When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total.” - Donald Trump (2020)
“Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” - Benito Mussolini
“We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.” - Donald Trump (2018)
“We do not subscribe to the fiction of international law when it conflicts with the life of the nation.” - Joseph Goebbels
