Between 2002 and 2021, on 52 occasions, flag-draped coffins returned home from Afghanistan and Iraq with Danish sons and daughters, where these fallen soldiers gave their lives fighting alongside the United States. In Afghanistan, Denmark suffered more casualties per capita than any other member of the US-led coalition, with the exception of Georgia - more than America itself.
Like every citizen of the Kingdom of Denmark, a state that includes both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, I have found myself in the position of watching, in a state of bitter disbelief, the threats to our sovereignty coming from the White House.
I have admired America since I was a child. As Prime Minister of Denmark and Secretary General of NATO, I considered America the natural leader of the free world. However, in light of President Donald Trump's hostile outbursts toward one of America's most loyal allies, I have now come to the conclusion that enough is enough.
Greenland poses no threat to America, and its territory is protected by Denmark's NATO membership. If Russia or China tried to land forces on Greenland, they would be met by the combined might of NATO allies, not just Danish forces.
If America wants to increase its military presence in Greenland, it can do so under the 1951 US-Denmark security agreement. If American companies want to invest more in Greenland's resources while their government seeks to prevent Russian or Chinese influence, they would be welcome.
Danish, Greenlandic and European politicians have, of course, made these arguments to their American counterparts, both publicly and privately. Europe has expressed concern and lodged formal protests. The problem, however, for Denmark and for Europe, is that these are the tools of a diplomatic era that is dying out. Trump’s insistence on annexing the territory of a trusted ally is not a byproduct of thoughtful foreign policy or geopolitical concerns.
He would like to annex Greenland because he believes he can. He believes he can use the enormous power of the American military and economy to force Denmark into submission. He believes that Europe is divided and weak, and that when pressure comes, we will stick to statements of deep disagreement while giving him what he wants.
For Greenland, of course, we must offer an exit ramp. I have proposed a renewal of the 1951 U.S.-Denmark security agreement covering Greenland; a new economic agreement that would give American companies greater access to Greenland's valuable natural resources; and a verification mechanism that would help deter Russian and Chinese investment as those two countries seek to expand their influence in the Arctic.
But after the president's recent statements, I also realize that this may not be enough. His is a world where might makes right: where borders and national sovereignty, from Greenland to Ukraine, are subject to the same ruthless rules as New York real estate.
Trump, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, believes in power - and only power. Europe must prepare to play by those same rules.
If Trump does not accept Greenland's democratic right to self-determination, Europe should first make clear the steps it is prepared to take - and this must go beyond the threat of retaliatory tariffs.
If the Trump administration tries to change the sovereign European border, America must face the full force of the EU's economic "bazooka", with massive restrictions on imports and exports and the exclusion of American companies from European public procurement.
Trump may think he holds all the cards, but Europe could deal the biggest trade blow ever to the American economy. Such a move would, of course, have consequences for Europe, but as history teaches us, polite concessions can have much more serious consequences.
In less than a year, Trump has fundamentally redrawn the rules of global engagement. Europe must finally accept this reality.
A little less than a year ago, after Trump's re-election, I wrote in The Economist that Europeans must finally take responsibility for their own security in a world where we can no longer count on the American-backed defense architecture that has protected us since the end of World War II.
While the European rearmament that I have advocated is underway, it is still too slow. We do not yet have the key strategic capabilities that would allow us to defend ourselves, with our own forces, and we have allowed Trump and Putin to continue to set the terms of a possible peace agreement in Ukraine. Given Trump's threats to European sovereignty, it is clear that our indecision has had consequences.
Since Trump believes, as Thucydides said, that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, Europe now has a responsibility to its citizens to act with a new clarity of purpose.
We must draw an impassable line in the snows of Greenland. We must arm ourselves with the same feverish urgency with which America, faced with expansionist powers, transformed itself into an arsenal of democracy in 1941. We must move quickly to expand trade relations, with democracies like Canada, India, and Australia, and with any other partner willing to play by a clearly defined set of economic rules, to protect ourselves from the unpredictable whims of Washington.
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Europe sought to ensure that we could never again be blackmailed. Yet today we face the hostility of autocratic power politics once again, while our closest ally makes it clear that alliances forged in the fires of history mean nothing to him.
Europe is therefore left with a choice. Either we play Mr. Trump's power game or we are forced to endure what we must.
The author is a former NATO Secretary General and former Prime Minister of Denmark.
The text is taken from "The Economist"
Translation:NB
Bonus video:
