He president-elect Donald Trump has launched expansionist rhetoric toward America’s allies and potential adversaries, arguing that the boundaries of American power should extend toward Canada and the Danish territory of Greenland, and southward to include the Panama Canal.
The Trump insinuations that it is possible to redefine international borders – by force if necessary – are particularly incendiary in Europe. His words contradict the argument that European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are trying to impose on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
However, many European leaders, who have learned to expect the unexpected from Trump and have seen that his actions do not always match his words, have had a measured response, with some adopting a “nothing to do here” stance. instead of vigorously defending Denmark, a member of the European Union.
But analysts say even words could damage U.S.-European relations ahead of Trump’s second presidency.
Diplomatic response in Europe
Several European officials — where governments depend on the United States for trade, energy, investment, technology and defense cooperation for security — emphasized their belief that Trump has no intention of sending troops to Greenland.
“I think we can exclude the possibility that the United States will try to use force in the coming years to annex territory of interest to it,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz objected — but carefully — saying that “borders should not be moved by force,” without mentioning Trump by name.
This week, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pressed the incoming Trump administration to continue supporting Ukraine, he said: “No matter what happens in the world, everyone wants to feel confident that their country will not just be wiped off the map.” .
Since Putin sent troops across Ukrainian borders in 2022, Zelenskyy and his allies have fought — at great cost — to defend the principle that has underpinned the international order since World War II: that powerful nations cannot simply devour to others.
The foreign ministers of the United Kingdom and France have said they do not foresee a US invasion of Greenland. Still, for French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, Trump’s comments are a wake-up call.
”Do we believe we are entering a period in which the law of the strongest will return?” said the French minister. “‘Yeah”.
On Friday, the prime minister of Greenland — a semi-autonomous Arctic territory that is not part of the European Union but whose 56,000 residents are citizens of the bloc as part of Denmark — said his people don’t want to be Americans but are open to a greater cooperation with the United States.
“Cooperation comes with dialogue,” said leader Múte B. Egede.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the United States “our closest ally” and said, “We have to stick together.”
For analysts, Trump’s words are worrying
European security analysts agreed there is no real chance Trump will use the military against NATO ally Denmark, but expressed deep concern.
Analysts warned of future turbulence for transatlantic ties, international norms and the NATO military alliance — fueled by the growing dispute with Canada, a member of the alliance, over Trump’s repeated hints that it should become a most state in the United States.
“There is the possibility, of course, that this is just… a new sheriff in town,” said Flemming Splidsboel Hansen, a specialist in foreign policy, Russia and Greenland at the Danish Institute of International Studies. “I take comfort in the fact that he now insists that Canada should be part of the United States, which indicates that it is just a kind of political bravado.
“But the damage has already been done. And I really can’t remember a previous incident like this, where an important ally — in this case, the most important ally — threatened Denmark or another NATO member state.”
Hansen said he fears NATO could be falling apart even before Trump takes office.
“I am concerned about our understanding of a collective West,” he said. ”What does this mean now? What might this mean, say, a year from now, two years from now, or at least, for the end of this second Trump presidency? What will be left?”
Security concerns as possible motivation
Some diplomats and analysts see a common thread in Trump’s interest in Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland: securing resources and waterways to strengthen the United States against potential adversaries.
Paris-based analyst Alix Frangeul-Alves said Trump’s language is “part of his ‘Make America Great Again’ mode.”
In Greenland’s soil, he noted, there are rare earths critical for advanced, green technologies. China dominates global supplies of the valuable minerals, which the United States, Europe and other nations consider a security risk.
“Any policy made in Washington is made through the lens of competition with China,” said Frangeul-Alves, who focuses on U.S. policy at the German Marshall Fund.
Some observers said Trump’s suggested methods are fraught with risks.
Security analyst Alexander Khara said Trump’s statement that “we need Greenland for national security reasons” reminded him of Putin’s comments about Crimea when Russia seized Ukraine’s strategic Black Sea peninsula in 2014.
Suggesting that borders could be flexible is “a completely dangerous precedent,” said Khara, director of the Center for Defense Strategies in kyiv.
“We are in a time of transition from the old system based on rules and principles,” he said, and “heading toward more conflict, more chaos and more uncertainty.”
Connect with the Voice of America! Subscribe to our channels YouTube, WhatsApp and to the newsletter. Turn on notifications and follow us on Facebook, x and instagram.
Add Comment