Just as Trump raised the tariff sword and European countries vowed a strong counterattack, the situation in Greenland suddenly changed overnight. Trump announced with great fanfare that the matter had been resolved and that it had fulfilled America's wish.

Lute and Trump

Recently, after meeting with NATO Secretary General Lute, Trump announced on social media that he had reached a framework agreement with Lute on the issue of Greenland Island. Although the specific content of the agreement was not disclosed, Trump was very excited and said that this framework agreement "permanently" satisfied America's wishes, especially regarding mineral resources, with no turning back.

As part of the deal, Trump decided to delay the punitive tariffs on eight European countries, including Denmark, France, and Germany, which were originally scheduled to take effect on February 1st. It is clear to everyone that this is a naked transaction. The public generally speculated that either Greenland was sold or the mineral development rights were given to the United States.

Whether one way or the other, this is a loss-making deal for Greenland and for Europe. More importantly, Greenland is not a country but an autonomous territory of Denmark. Will Denmark agree to this agreement reached by Lute on behalf of NATO with Trump? What is the attitude of other NATO countries?

Demonstrations in the capital of Denmark

At present, Trump's so-called "framework agreement" remains shrouded in mystery. He refused to reveal the details, only saying it was "a bit complicated," but hinted that the content involved two aspects: American mineral rights in Greenland and a missile defense system called "Gold Dome." This ambiguity strategy gives Trump a lot of room for interpretation and promotion.

As for Europe, the official side has not yet made a statement, but the public has exploded with anger, condemning Lute as a "traitor in Europe" and stating that he should not have compromised with the United States. However, Lute's compromise can be considered unexpected but reasonable. The United States is the leader of NATO, and its military and economic power far exceed that of other member states.

NATO countries

Most European countries rely on NATO's collective defense to ensure their own security, especially under the military pressure from Russia. Therefore, European countries dare not easily break with the United States. Now, Trump is threatening to use force and also brandishing the tariff sword. No matter which move, Europe may find it hard to cope.

It can be said that Europe is currently facing a deep collective dilemma. The so-called "framework agreement" cannot hide the humiliation and strategic passivity that Europe is suffering. From the information that has been revealed so far, this framework agreement is not simply a "land sale," and to some extent, it does not touch the bottom lines of the European countries.

However, Europe may also make concessions. First, the United States would gain partial land control and mineral exploitation rights in Greenland, expand military bases in Greenland, and deploy the "Gold Dome" missile defense system. Second, NATO would commit to strengthening military cooperation in the Arctic region, cooperating with the U.S. strategic deployment to ensure the U.S. security and resource interests in the Arctic region.

US military base on Greenland

For the United States, although it did not directly "buy" Greenland, it has obtained actual control over strategic locations and mineral resources, which has already met its core needs. That is why Trump claimed that "America's wishes have been permanently satisfied." For European countries, although they have sacrificed part of their interests, they have avoided the impact of a trade war and maintained the surface stability of the NATO alliance, which is a kind of "reluctant concession."

However, this is just a framework agreement, and subsequent negotiations are still ongoing. How much will European countries compromise remains highly uncertain. But one thing is clear: so-called "alliance relationships" are always based on interests. Only by being strong can one safeguard one's sovereignty and interests in the complex international landscape.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7598047021911507510/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author.