Europe sends soldiers to Greenland: next move?

La Libre Belgique observes with consternation that instead of concerted action by the EU, once again, only a small group is reacting:

“The end of the EU is no longer an intellectual taboo. It is becoming politically conceivable. Not as the result of a sudden collapse, but of gradual erosion, loss of substance, renunciation. The number of small-scale cooperation projects is increasing, particularly in the defence sector. This conveys a simple message: the current model no longer works, or barely works. In a world of overt autocracies where the law of the strongest prevails, shocked paralysis is not a strategy. Either the EU accepts that it must reform and become more flexible, coherent and responsive, or it will remain what it seems to have become: a paper tiger.”

Trump has already won and Europe is on the defensive, De Standaard laments:

“Ukraine is the weak point in the European position. The fear that the US will withdraw its commitment inevitably plays a role in all Europe's dealings with Trump. This forces the EU to make a difficult decision. Either it draws a very clear red line in Greenland, with the risk of a worst-case scenario in Ukraine, or it pins its hopes on the US continuing to support Kyiv in exchange for a 'solution' in Greenland. And that would mean bowing to the worst kind of imperialist power politics.”

Tageblatt calls for measures to whip up public support for Denmark:

“This may be the only way to dissuade Trump from pursuing his plan to bring Greenland under his control, using military force if necessary. ... The Europeans should work together with Canada and the UK to promote Denmark's plans as publicly as possible – to pre-empt the US. But also to build up counterpressure on Washington in the hope that some members of the US political class, especially Republicans, are thinking beyond Trump's term in office and have some idea of the international damage that implementing their president's plans could cause.”

Sending European soldiers to Greenland won't achieve much, says The Spectator:

“There is a risk, then, that Trump's supposed justifications for taking the territory by force could be spreading already-stretched European defence resources even thinner at a critical time for the continent's security. The single positive outcome of yesterday's summit in Washington is that the Danish, Greenlandic and American delegations agreed to set up a working group to talk through Trump's security concerns in more detail. If anything, the Danes will be hoping that this will at least buy them time as they bolster Greenland's defences on their own terms. ... It's clear this won't be the end of the crisis for Europe.”

Europe is blind to reality, La Stampa rails:

“While Greenland's ice sheet is shrinking by around 300 billion tonnes a year, another European certainty is melting away just as quickly: the idea that the United States is a natural ally and Russia a threat to our continued existence. For eighty years, we have lived in this simplistic world as if it were a house with thick walls. Now global warming – both climatic and geopolitical – is undermining its foundations. ... But fixating on Trump is, as always, the easiest way to avoid confronting reality, and the map. Because Trump will eventually go, whereas Greenland will remain exactly where it is: at the centre of a power struggle that no government will ever end.”

Politiken views the deployment of European troops to the island as a primarily symbolic act:

“Of course, it has heightened the drama of the situation that Nato countries, such as Sweden, Norway and Germany, are now symbolically sending troops to Greenland to show that this is more than just a conflict between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark. This also creates internal divisions within Nato. However, in reality, the European Nato countries will at most protest loudly, but never take action against the United States. They are well aware that their own security in relation to Russia would be at risk if they were to lose the nuclear protection provided by the US. Europe's Nato members need the US more than the US needs them.”

La Repubblica is concerned:

“The Old Continent's response to Trump has already arrived. And almost all of Europe's 'Arctic' countries are preparing to send troops to defend the ice island. ... In the meantime, the EU is considering whether Article 42 of the EU Treaty can be activated, which provides for mutual military assistance for EU member states. The American challenge therefore already seems to be taking on military dimensions – a completely unexpected situation with unforeseeable consequences.”

Aftonbladet stresses the importance of NATO and EU countries standing together:

“More soldiers must be added to those already stationed in Greenland, and we must demonstrate together that we take security in the Arctic very seriously. ... Donald Trump must also be taken very seriously, even if he says and does absurd things. The times when the US acted as a guarantor of peace and security – the so-called Pax Americana – are over. Our response to this should be a cohesive stance. Europe is not a small state that has to kowtow to the US. Neither politically, diplomatically, nor economically. Not if we support each other.”

There are three approaches Europe can take towards Trump, says The Economist:

“[D]eflate, deter and distract. For now the priority is to deflate Mr Trump's concerns by demonstrating that his purported worries can be resolved within the existing legal framework. Europe needs to consider its second set of options, which seek to deter a Trump grab for the island. There is some tough talk in Brussels and elsewhere over suspending elements of the European Union's recently agreed trade deal with America, or imposing a regulatory squeeze on its tech firms. The final hope is that Mr Trump may be distracted from his quest. Perhaps once the sugar high from the Venezuela operation has worn off, he will find something else to worry about.”

Copenhagen was at least very well prepared for the meeting in Washington, Berlingske comments:

“The Kingdom of Denmark could not have hoped for a better outcome from this fateful meeting, although it's clear the crisis is far from over. Regardless of what the future holds, the Danish government should be commended for its preparations for this historically crucial meeting. ... In recent weeks, one Nato country after another has rushed to Denmark's aid, if not with deeds, then at least with words. Efforts to counter American aggression have been stepped up, as is necessary. ... So far, so good. Has the crisis now finally been averted? Unfortunately, that's not how the world works.”