Send European soldiers to Greenland?
The Greenland meeting in Washington on Wednesday ended without an agreement being reached: the US government is sticking to its takeover plans and Denmark's Foreign Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, said at the end of the meeting: 'We therefore still have a fundamental disagreement, but we also agree to disagree.' In addition to Denmark, several other EU countries plan to show a military presence on the island. Commentators across Europe try to make sense of the new situation.
More a bluff than a deterrent
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.”
Risky military dimensions
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.”
A cohesive stance shows strength
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.”
Three ways to tackle Trump
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.”
Denmark did its homework
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.”