Europe cannot forever indulge Trump

As the president menaces Greenland, France, Germany and Britain must now draw their own red lines for the transatlantic relationship

Somewhere, hidden away in a deep corner of Whitehall, a hapless British official has doubtless been set to work on a paper that his political masters do not want to read. What if Donald Trump is true to his word and really does annex Greenland? What are the government’s options? It’s a fair bet that the official has a counterpart in just about every chancellery in Europe. And that they are all wrestling mightily to come up with a response.

The US president stirs two impulses among European leaders (I am excepting here pocket-Putins in the mould of Hungary’s Viktor Orban). The first blends personal revulsion with dismay and anger. The second, equally depressing in its way, admits the impotence that flows from Europe’s dependence on America’s security guarantee.

So far they have just about stayed on the tightrope, trading personal self-esteem and reputations for the effort to prevent Trump from forcing Ukraine to submit to Russian aggression. The approach, though, has always been a matter of tactics as much as strategy. Trump’s latest menacing of Greenland signals that Europe is fast approaching a point of decision. It must start to draw its own red lines. And be prepared to use all the leverage it has while it equips itself to defend them.

The experience thus far has been unavoidably uncomfortable, with Europeans making awkward, often humiliating public choices between much their vaunted liberal values and hard-headed national interests. Realpolitik has held sway, even among those who struggle to utter Trump’s name without contempt. Ukraine is not just about Ukraine. A Russian victory would imperil the continent. So a procession of presidents and prime ministers have paid homage to Trump’s dangerous narcissism.

There was no surprise then in the mealy-mouthed response to Trump’s disdain for international legal norms in seizing of Nicolás Maduro and declaring that Venezuela will henceforth be run for the benefit of American oil companies. On this, as much else, Trump hankers for the 1950s, when Central America was deemed the property of the United Fruit Company. For Guatemalan bananas read Venezuelan oil.

Feeble as it has made them look - the more so as China and Russia have shown how they can face down the bluster - the Europeans’ judgement has been broadly the right one. It has been an attempt to buy time to reflect the geopolitical reality of a continent seriously threatened by Putin’s revanchism at a time it cannot properly defend itself.

Nor has the news been all bad. Trump has put aside his early threats to cut off Ukraine completely. European governments are now providing Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s forces with substantial military aid - and the cash to keep buying American weapons. A €90 billion financial package from the European Union should underpin Ukraine’s economy for the next two years.

The coalition of the willing established by France, Germany and Britain has been a counterweight to Trump’s infatuation with Putin. Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer work well together. Last November the White House presented a ceasefire proposal written in the Kremlin. In its amended form, the plan provides for a permanent US security guarantee for Kyiv and the stationing of European troops within Ukraine in the (unlikely) event that Putin agrees to halt the war.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance to Ukraine’s defence of American intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition technology - ISTAR in the jargon. The withdrawal of US support would cost Ukraine many lives and, quite possibly, oblige it to cede more territory. The problem with Greenland is that Trump has raised the price of appeasement beyond anything Europe can afford to pay.

The threat to grab the territory of a fellow member of NATO strikes at the very core of its purpose. What use is an alliance built to defend the borders of its member states if the most powerful player can simply grab the territory of one of partners?

It is obvious to all that the US does not need sovereignty to expand its military footprint in Greenland and secure the Arctic against Russian and Chinese incursion. Nor, for that matter, to secure access to Greenland’s minerals. Denmark has said it would welcome a new build up of American forces in Greenland under an existing military agreement. Washington has been running its forces down since the 1950s. As for US investment in mineral development, the door is likewise open. Trump’s purpose, however, is self-aggrandisement rather than security.

The statement by members of the coalition of the willing that the territorial integrity of Greenland and Danish sovereignty is inviolate is fine so far as it goes. But the tone is one of lets-hope-it-all-calms-down rather than of firm resolve.

The valid criticism of Europe’s conciliatory approach during the past year is that it has underestimated its own strength and overestimated that of Trump. The EU folded its cards in the face of US import tariffs. Beijing forced an American climbdown by restricting its access to supplies of China’s rare earths.

Trump’s authority is not limitless (witness that within days of declaring he was “running” Venezuela, the administration felt obliged to advise Americans to flee the country). It is more than questionable also whether the White House could win necessary Congressional approval for annexation of Greenland or of anywhere else. And the administration is not going to head off a defeat in this year’s mid-term elections by risking a transatlantic trade war.

As with bullies through time, Trump feeds off the perceived weakness of victims. The steps Europeans have taken thus far to increase military spending and reorganise their defence industries leave the continent well short of the strategic autonomy from the US that must be the long term goal. They must go further, faster. But they also have to be ready to say No to Trump along the way. They might find he is bluffing.