What the Greenland crisis reveals about Europe’s strategic future

If Europeans needed yet another reminder of President Donald Trump’s disdain for traditional alliances, his scornful tone toward Europe at the World Economic Forum in Davos provided it. Public mockery aside, the episode revealed something more consequential: Europe may have rediscovered how to push back.

What unfolded around Greenland offered a rare moment of clarity. By closing ranks around the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity—and backing words with the threat of serious economic retaliation—Europe appears to have forced a retreat from Washington.

Territorial Integrity: Europe’s Non-Negotiable Red Line

The inviolability of borders is not an abstract concept in Europe. It is the cornerstone of a post–World War II order built from the devastation caused by imperial conquest and unchecked great-power ambition. The lesson of that era was stark: only collective defense of borders can protect smaller states from larger, predatory powers.

That logic underpins both the European Union and NATO. In an era when international law is routinely violated, Europe’s insistence on defending the U.N. Charter, the Helsinki Accords, and basic sovereignty principles may appear idealistic—but it is also existential.

Expansionism Returns—From Allies and Adversaries Alike

Europe today faces renewed pressure from multiple directions. Russia continues its war of conquest against Ukraine, despite having recognized Ukrainian sovereignty in multiple treaties. More unsettling for many Europeans, however, was the United States openly pressuring Denmark—an E.U. and NATO ally—to hand over Greenland.

Ian Lesser, head of the German Marshall Fund’s Brussels office, warned that challenges to borders by force or coercion strike at the heart of European security. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine made this threat obvious, he noted, the idea that the United States could also undermine sovereignty principles represents a profound rupture in Europe’s security assumptions.

Europe’s Changing Relationship With Sovereignty

For decades, Europe sought to dilute national sovereignty by pooling power through multilateral institutions. Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, argues that this era is ending.

The rise of assertive “great powers”—China, Russia, and now a more transactional United States—has forced Europe to rediscover sovereignty as a shield rather than a liability. While Europeans may no longer be able to uphold a global rules-based order, Leonard said, they can still ensure that those rules survive within Europe itself. Ukraine and Greenland, in this sense, have become symbolic battlegrounds.

The Collapse of the Old International Order

At Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney captured the mood bluntly, declaring that the old international order is effectively dead. In its place, he warned, great powers are weaponizing economic integration—using tariffs, supply chains, and financial systems as tools of coercion.

For “middle powers” like Europe and Canada, Carney argued, survival now depends on forming new alliances and protecting themselves. His conclusion was stark: when rules no longer protect you, self-defense becomes unavoidable. Europe, increasingly, appears to agree.

Ukraine as Proof of Europe’s Resolve

Europe’s response to Ukraine underscores this shift. European governments have resisted pressure from Washington to push Kyiv into territorial concessions and have made clear that any Russian occupation—even if frozen by a ceasefire—will never be recognized as legitimate.

In material terms, Europe has also stepped up. Collectively, European states have now provided more economic and military aid to Ukraine than the United States, especially after Washington cut funding. A new €90 billion aid package further reinforced Europe’s willingness to shoulder responsibility.

Standing With Denmark—and Drawing the Line

The same logic guided Europe’s response to Trump’s Greenland demands. Expressions of solidarity with Denmark and Greenland were not merely symbolic. When threats of annexation escalated into tariff ultimatums, Europe prepared to respond.

French President Emmanuel Macron summed up the prevailing mood in Davos: Europe now has powerful tools—and must use them. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever was even blunter, warning that there is a difference between cooperation and submission.

From Flattery to Deterrence

European officials increasingly acknowledge that their early strategy toward Trump—based on flattery and accommodation—failed. As one senior European official put it anonymously, diplomacy still matters, but only if it is backed by credible force. In other words: a polite smile works better when there is a weapon in your pocket.

That weapon emerged in the form of trade power. After suspending a weak transatlantic tariff agreement, the E.U. prepared €93 billion in countertariffs on American goods. Markets reacted sharply, signaling real economic consequences.

Economic Pressure Changes the Equation

According to Mark Leonard, the threat of countertariffs rattled markets enough to influence decision-making in Washington. Through financial pressure rather than military confrontation, Europe demonstrated seriousness—and it worked.

Following discussions with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump publicly softened his stance, referencing a vague “deal” framework on Greenland and withdrawing tariff threats. Though he claimed victory, the strategic outcome favored Europe.

Unity as Europe’s Strategic Weapon

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen later described the episode as a tactical lesson: firmness, preparedness, outreach, and—above all—unity proved effective. This approach, she said, should guide future dealings with Washington.

For smaller European states, the stakes are especially high. Jana Puglierin of the European Council on Foreign Relations warned that assaults on sovereignty threaten the very foundation of the European Union, where small and large countries formally enjoy equal standing.

A System Under Pressure

Russia, China, and the United States, Puglierin argued, are all attempting to reshape the international order—and all benefit from a divided Europe. The deeper question now is whether institutions like the E.U. and NATO can function in a world increasingly hostile to consensus, law, and sovereign equality.

These institutions, she warned, are built on principles now under attack. Their survival may determine whether Europe’s long era of peace and prosperity can endure in a far more predatory global landscape.