海角大神

To keep Trump out of Greenland, Europe asks itself: 鈥楬ow far can we really go?鈥�

After a year of largely appeasing U.S. President Donald Trump, European leaders are quickly coming to the conclusion that the time has arrived to push back.

Since Mr. Trump returned to office, their hope has been to ride out the president鈥檚 second term without provoking him. Europe could stand up against Mr. Trump, but the economic cost would be enormous, and taking him on risked casting the continent into the unknown. The continent鈥檚 postwar stability and prosperity have been built with the American alliance at their foundation.

But Mr. Trump鈥檚 determination to annex Greenland has crossed a new line. This past weekend, he threatened to hit eight European countries with tariffs if the United States is not given control of the island, which is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Military force is also an option, the White House has repeatedly said.

How Europe pushes back likely will not remotely resemble Mr. Trump鈥檚 own unabashedly undiplomatic statements and threats. The European Union was not made to act precipitously. It was made to do the opposite: to build consensus among 27 different nations though slow, incremental steps. If the U.S. and Europe go down the path of a trade war, Europe will do so deliberately, carefully.

Whether the EU鈥檚 27 members can find the common ground to come together and the fortitude to stomach the consequences is an open question. But recent days have raised the memory of the recent and distant past, from Ukraine to World War II. An invasion violating national sovereignty is precisely what the European postwar order was established to prevent.

Europe knows it is powerless to prevent such a recurrence militarily. But it is now girding itself to use the economic means at its disposal 鈥� if necessary 鈥� to make its support for Greenland plain.

鈥淭he question of sovereignty and of the rule of international order are at the core of European solidarity and how the continent can function,鈥� says Niklas Helwig, a leading researcher for the Finnish Institute of International Affairs in Brussels. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want to repeat history. ... There鈥檚 a sense that invading Greenland would be very dangerous.鈥�

Signs of this solidarity came from places expected and surprising. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said Monday, 鈥淕ermany and France agree: We will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed.鈥� British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the U.S. effort 鈥渢otally wrong.鈥�

Even one of the Trump administration鈥檚 closest European allies strongly condemned the move. Nigel Farage, leader of the surging far-right Reform UK party, confronted U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson on live television.

鈥淭o have a U.S. president threatening tariffs unless we agree that he can take over Greenland, by some means, without, it seems, even getting the consent of the people of Greenland ... this is a very hostile act,鈥� he said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no other way I can put it.鈥�

The latest flashpoint came after several European nations sent a small deployment of forces to Greenland last week for Danish-led military exercises.

European leaders say it was an attempt to respond to Mr. Trump鈥檚 concerns that they are not taking Greenland鈥檚 security seriously. Mr. Trump saw it as an act of defiance and singled out eight participants: France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. He vowed to impose 10% tariffs on them by Feb. 1 if they did not yield Greenland. The tariffs would rise to 25% on June 1 without a deal for 鈥渢he Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.鈥�

Europe鈥檚 most obvious response would be to not ratify the trade deal struck between the U.S. and the EU last summer. The deal avoided $108 billion in tariffs that Europe had planned to impose on the U.S. It was set to be ratified in February. Now, the original tariffs could be imposed in its place.

France has gone further, proposing that the EU consider its most powerful economic tool: the anti-coercion instrument, which would shut all American businesses out of the European market. It was designed with China in mind, but the hope was it would never be used. So far, it has not been.

It is a powerful symbol of both the continent鈥檚 strengths and weaknesses.

On one hand, cutting off all access to the European market would inflict massive economic damage on the American economy. The American tech industry alone does hundreds of billions of dollars in sales annually in Europe.

On the other, the rules for using it are so cautious that, under normal circumstances, it would take up to six months to deploy, involving a monthslong fact-finding mission, negotiations with the target nation, and two votes. This could, in theory, be accelerated, but it speaks not only to the bureaucratic way the EU acts, but also to the difficulty of finding consensus.

Currently, there is no consensus to use the anti-coercion instrument, aka the 鈥渢rade bazooka.鈥� And the reasons are plain. The result would be massively damaging to many European nations, too. And more than that, what would such a move mean for Europe itself? Modern Europe has built itself on America鈥檚 protection, support, and economic cooperation.

鈥淵ou鈥檝e built a house on a foundation. Now, the foundation is shifting. What do you do with the house?鈥� says Penny Nass, an economic analyst at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington.

Ms. Nass says taking on the U.S. could reinvigorate Europe, giving it new purpose and direction. But she acknowledges the economic cost could also fray already strained ties and lead to the decline of the EU as an effective institution.

It would be a step into a future that, until very recently, no one imagined. Now, that realization is dawning 鈥� deliberately, carefully, but indelibly.

鈥淭here is a realization that just appeasing Trump is coming across as weak, and the administration smells weakness,鈥� says Dr. Helwig. 鈥淲e have to show strength. That doesn鈥檛 mean throwing out the transatlantic relationship, but standing up for ourselves.鈥�