Greenland: what can Europe do to stop the US?
Discussions about Greenland and the US's plans for a takeover will be held in Washington today. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with his Danish counterpart Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland's Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Motzfeldt. US Vice President JD Vance, who has emphasised his country's security interests and advised Europeans to take Trump seriously on the matter, also plans to attend. Europe's press points to a major conflict of interests within Nato.
Put EU membership on the agenda
Berlingske recommends a more unified stance and giving Greenland EU membership:
“Pressure from the US has shown that Greenland would be far too vulnerable and isolated in the event of a break with Denmark. Greenland needs to gain more control over its economy and to continue the dialogue with Denmark on the development of self-government. We also recommend resuming the debate on Greenland's accession to the EU. Just as the EU can contribute to securing Ukraine's sovereignty in the future, Greenland's membership in the European Union would have a significant impact.”
Be faster than Washington
The other Nato states should act before the US does, Sme advises:
“What if they were to pre-empt Trump's plans and deploy their own troops to protect Greenland before he does? True, they would then have to repeat all his lies about the Russians and Chinese allegedly surrounding Greenland and planning an occupation. If, however, the EU, the UK and Canada (all Nato members) were to send ships, aircraft and troops to Greenland at Denmark's invitation, a hostile takeover by the United States would become extremely difficult – if not impossible.”
Trump could just buy the population
The Kronen Zeitung newspaper has no doubt that the takeover is feasible:
“If Trump sticks with his goal of taking Greenland, he will get the island – without violence. ... The deal will not be made with Copenhagen, but directly with the 57,000 Greenlanders. ... If Trump offers every Greenlander 100,000 dollars in welcome money (totalling 6 billion dollars – loose change for this US government), plus US citizenship and full autonomy like the US Caribbean island of Puerto Rico, even the most passionate Greenlandic independence advocates could be persuaded. Puerto Rico has voted six times on independence, and even in the best result yet, in 2024, only 12 percent voted to secede from the US.”
Reset in relations with US needed
An update in relations with Washington is long overdue, writes political scientist and Greenland expert Cécile Pelaudeix in Le Monde:
“It would be risky to rely solely on the American opposition in Congress to counter US threats against Greenland ahead of the midterm elections. The US can monetise the island's security, make economic investments in Greenland and resort to retaliatory measures against Danish companies to persuade Denmark to back down. The EU must have the courage to rethink its relations with the US – as it did in 2019 with a new China doctrine. Faced with an American partner that is acting as an adversary on the issue of Greenland, the EU must also see itself as a power and take clear action as such.”
The Article 5 dilemma
La Repubblica sees a dilemma for Nato:
“On the eve of the foreign ministers' meeting, the Greenlandic government has laid its cards on the table. ... It has no intention of accepting Donald Trump's embrace - whether friendly or hostile. The 'Nuuk affair' is thus becoming increasingly complicated. So much so that a summit meeting will be held in Brussels next Monday with Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte and the defence ministers of Denmark and Greenland. Because everyone is focused on the same question: what will the Atlantic Alliance do if the US uses force to take over the island? Will Article 5, the article on mutual defence, come into force? And in whose favour?”
Rutte's sweet talking won't work here
The tactic of flattery that Nato boss Mark Rutte usually employs with Trump is reaching its limits on this issue, says NRC:
“Rutte is trying to counter Trump's irrational desire with a rational solution. Are additional Nato soldiers and a skilfully presented strategy for the High North enough to defuse the rapidly escalating crisis between two allies? And one must also ask whether Rutte's tried-and-tested weapon, flattery, will work in this situation. … A US annexation of Greenland is not necessary to better protect the Arctic against future threats. Flattery is only sustainable if it contains a kernel of truth.”