In an unprecedented diplomatic retreat, Europe's leaders appear to be doing everything possible to avoid conflict with U.S. President Donald Trump, reaching the point of "haggling" over Greenland. From proposals to utilize NATO for strengthening Arctic security to concessions toward the U.S. in mineral mining, the bloc's leaders are leaning heavily toward compromise rather than confrontation with Trump, according to three diplomats and an EU official who spoke to Politico.
"In the end, we always reached a common conclusion" with Washington, stated German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul after meeting his American counterpart, Marco Rubio, adding that their talks on the Arctic were "encouraging." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that he hopes a "mutually acceptable solution" can be found within NATO. The Foreign Ministers of Greenland and Denmark are set to meet with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, in the presence of Rubio, at the White House today, January 14, 2026. According to another EU diplomat familiar with the meeting plans, they are hoping for "a frank discussion with the administration."
The prevailing scenario for Greenland
Asked to describe a possible final scenario for Greenland, the first EU diplomat said it could involve a deal that gives Trump a victory he could sell domestically, such as a commitment by European countries to invest more in Arctic security, as well as a promise that the U.S. could reap profits from Greenland's mineral wealth.
Trump is primarily looking for a win on the Greenland issue, the diplomat said. "If you can cleverly repackage Arctic security, mix it with critical minerals, and put a big bow on top, there is a chance" Trump will sign. "Past experience"—such as when EU allies committed to spending 5% of GDP on defense—showed that "this is always how things evolve."
On the defense side, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte prepared the ground for a deal on Monday, saying alliance countries are discussing ways to strengthen security in the Arctic. Although the "next steps" mentioned by Rutte have not yet been clarified, an increase in investment from European NATO members is a possibility that would align with Trump's desire to see Europe take greater responsibility for its security.
In the mineral mining sector, details are hazier. However, a deal guaranteeing the U.S. a share of profits from the extraction of critical raw materials is a possibility, according to the EU official. Currently, the capacity to mine critical raw materials in Greenland is limited. Denmark has spent years seeking investments for long-term projects with little success, as countries prefer to source minerals at much lower prices from global markets.
The EU plans to more than double its investments in Greenland in its next long-term budget, including funds for critical raw material projects. This could serve as an enticement for Trump to accept a co-investment deal. However, if Trump’s real goal is the island’s minerals, the Danes have been offering the U.S. the opportunity to invest in Greenland for years, a proposal that, according to several diplomats, was rejected by American officials. If Trump's pressure regarding Greenland is related to China and Russia, he could easily ask Copenhagen for an increased presence of U.S. troops on the island, they add.
A third EU diplomat wondered if Trump's real goal is to be written into the history books. The slogan Make America Great Again "has been transformed into a geographical concept. He wants to go down in history as the man who made America 'bigger'—in geographical terms," he said.
Preserving NATO
Above all, governments are trying to avoid a military conflict, the three diplomats and the EU official stated. Direct U.S. intervention in Greenland—territory belonging to an EU and NATO member state—would essentially mean the end of the post-war security architecture, leaders have warned.
"It would be an unprecedented situation in the history of NATO and any defense alliance," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said on Tuesday, adding that Berlin is discussing with Copenhagen the options available to Europe in case the U.S. attempts a takeover. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen both stated that a military intervention would mean the end of NATO. "Everything would stop," Frederiksen said.
"No provision [in the founding treaty of 1949] foresees an attack by one NATO ally against another," said a NATO diplomat, requesting anonymity. This would mean "the end of the alliance," he added. Trump has stated that "it may be an option" for the U.S. to choose between his pursuit of control over Greenland and maintaining the alliance.
Preserving NATO remains the bloc's top priority, the first EU diplomat said. Although officials have categorically rejected the idea that Europe would "hand over" Greenland to the U.S. both privately and publicly, the comments highlight how desperately governments are trying to avoid a direct confrontation with Washington. "This is serious and Europe is afraid," said a fourth EU diplomat involved in the Brussels discussions regarding the bloc's reaction. A fifth described the moment as "seismic" because it showed the U.S. was ready to tear up a century of unshakable relations.
Europeans in shock
While European leaders largely agree that a military conflict is unthinkable, how a negotiated solution will be achieved is proving much more complex. Until the U.S. military strike in Venezuela on January 3 and Trump's new statements that the U.S. "must have" Greenland, Europeans were clearly not working on a plan to protect Greenland from Trump, as doing so could make the threat real.
"It was something we had anticipated as a possible risk, but something about which we could do very little," said Thomas Crosbie, an American military analyst at the Royal Danish Defence College. "The logic was that the more we focus on it and the more we prepare to prevent it, the more we increase the likelihood of it happening. So there was anxiety that, by planning resistance [to a U.S. invasion], we might inadvertently encourage greater interest and escalate the situation," he said.
The problem was that, having spent six years carefully avoiding drafting a response plan to Trump’s threats, Europeans were ultimately left searching for answers. They are now called upon to identify what tools they have in their "quiver" to respond to Washington, according to a former Danish MP familiar with the discussions. "The usual rulebook no longer works."
Officials consider this the greatest challenge for Europe since World War II and are not sure what to do. "We know how we would react if Russia started behaving like this," said the fourth diplomat. But with the U.S., "this is simply not something we are used to."
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών