【Wen / Observers Network Columnist Anton Nierman, Translation / Xue Kaihuan】

On January 17th local time, US President Trump posted on social media announcing that he would impose a 10% tariff on European countries opposing his acquisition of Greenland, with the rate to be raised to 25% in several months. The New York Times pointed out on the 18th that this "ultimatum" measure has upended months of US-EU trade negotiations, pushing both sides toward direct confrontation.

According to the Financial Times on the 19th, the EU is urgently discussing countermeasures, considering resuming a tariff list targeting 93 billion euros worth of American products that had been postponed until February 6th, and also plans to use a so-called "trade rocket launcher" (ACI) to restrict access for US companies; at the same time, France and Germany are coordinating a joint response plan, with their finance ministers meeting in Berlin on the 19th, and will then go to Brussels to discuss with European counterparts and G7 partners.

Since early 2026, especially after the failed meeting between US Secretary of State Rubio and Danish Foreign Minister Rasmussen in Washington on January 14th, the territorial dispute over Greenland between the US and the EU has led to unprecedented tension among NATO members, actually pushing them to the brink of internal conflict.

After an hour-long negotiation with Rubio, Rasmussen clearly stated that the US' pursuit of Greenland was unacceptable. "Obviously, President Trump is intent on seizing Greenland. We have made it extremely clear that this does not serve the interests of the Kingdom of Denmark," Rasmussen told reporters.

"Vance hates us, he's a tough guy. I think he will have a negative impact on the development of events," said an anonymous European diplomat to an American media outlet. Some US government officials are also humiliating the EU in various forms. Bill Long, a US ambassador to Iceland candidate, during a formal meeting with US Congressmen, claimed that Greenland would soon become the next state of the United States, and he himself would be expected to serve as "governor". The White House also posted a picture of a Greenland sled dog on social media, captioned: "These sled dogs just need to choose between 'America' and the 'Russia-China alliance'. " Obviously, the Trump team doesn't take Denmark, let alone the EU, seriously.

On January 15th, the White House's X platform official account released an AI-generated image showing a sled dog symbolizing Greenland facing a choice between "America or China-Russia." The caption read: "Which way, Greenland man?"

The US' ambition to annex Greenland is increasingly becoming reality, which is by no means a fantasy. The logic behind this idea is the Monroe Doctrine (now called the "Tang Luo Doctrine"), a core path through which the US became a major power historically, and the way it still demonstrates its strength today.

Therefore, after the US showed its teeth, the EU's reaction was very naive and extremely panicked. For example, Germany was still trying to advocate for joint Arctic development between the US and EU Arctic countries, and Denmark even invited the US to participate in joint military exercises in Greenland, but the US ignored Germany and Denmark's proposals, because the core issue is not the so-called "Russian and Chinese threat", but the US' own ambitions.

For decades, Western European politicians have considered themselves as "special" beings, and EU officials believe that Europe is a privileged "garden". They are willing to infringe upon the sovereignty of other countries in the world, yet they claim this is an embodiment of humanitarianism, democracy, and civilization. However, they have never seriously considered that the same logic would apply to themselves. The EU's high-profile promotion of "North Atlantic solidarity" or "values community" is essentially based on this special status.

Europe is essentially a moral decoration of US power: the EU is a political entity that considers itself a "partner" of the US, but in reality, it is merely a satellite puppet. Now, the unmasked US has delivered a fatal blow to this illusion. The EU has still not realized the key issue: while the US wants Greenland, there is indeed a desire to annex territory, but Trump's deeper motivation is more psychological and political - he wants himself and the US to be able to act according to power, and the US to enjoy the legitimacy of bullying the weak.

EU: Strong Statements, Symbolic Resistance

After the Washington meeting failed, European countries took some actions to demonstrate their determination to defend Danish sovereignty. On the early morning of January 15th, after the Washington talks, European countries immediately began to reinforce their forces in Greenland. The Royal Danish Air Force's military transport planes landed at Nuuk Airport, the capital of Greenland, and at the strategic location of Kangerlussuaq Airport.

"This is a multi-national vanguard force without the US. In the coming days, reconnaissance units from Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Norway, and Canada will arrive one by one. Coordination work is directly led by Denmark, rather than through the US-led NATO institutions. This clear signal indicates that Europe no longer trusts Washington. Europe is proving that it will not hand over its ally's territory, even if it is ready to confront the 'strongest ally' to protect it," reported Bild.

It is known that the German Army only sent 13 soldiers to Greenland, the French sent 15 soldiers, and Norway humorously sent two Arctic special forces soldiers to Denmark, while the UK's move was even more humorous, sending only one soldier to Greenland. Even European media humorously reported that this soldier may be a superhuman with extraordinary abilities.

Currently, the six European countries sending troops to Greenland have a total number of troops not exceeding one platoon (about 100 people). Obviously, this "combined force" is probably all the military power the EU can offer for Greenland, which cannot match the long-term stationed US military with a military base as support.

Why did the EU do such a seemingly funny thing as "sending individual soldiers"? First of all, regardless of how much Europe fears the US and how obediently it follows the US' initiatives, they ultimately have to respond to Trump's reckless behavior.

It should be noted that Denmark is being forcibly deprived of an island of over 2 million square kilometers, which is also a stepping stone for exploring the endless resources of the Arctic continental shelf. But the EU's response must be moderate, otherwise the consequences could be unimaginable. Therefore, this might be the first clear response from the EU and also the last, and the EU's actions are likely limited to sending this small "combined force" of less than one platoon, without further actions.

Secondly, the EU needs to explain to its citizens why it is pouring everything into Ukraine, which is neither an EU member nor a NATO member, but is allowing the "American aggressor" to take away the Greenland belonging to the EU and NATO without resistance. So the Danish side says that if the US military launches an attack, Danish soldiers will be forced to use live ammunition to retaliate. However, any military conflict between the EU and the US will lead to the automatic collapse of NATO, destroying the so-called "transatlantic solidarity", thus causing the EU to lose the US' military protection. The EU cannot afford this cost, so it only dares to send a small army of less than 100 people to make a show. Their goal is to show "strength" while indicating to the US that they do not want to trigger a conflict (otherwise they wouldn't have sent so few people).

They hope to solve the problem through negotiations. Sending a "combined force" to Greenland is just increasing their leverage in future negotiations in Greenland and putting on a show for voters who are dissatisfied with the Trump administration. However, the effectiveness of this trick is highly questionable, especially in the context where Trump has openly shown that he sees Greenland as "US territory". Who would think that the EU's troop deployment could deter Trump? On the contrary, the number of soldiers will instead stimulate Trump's expansionist desires, because Europeans have exposed their weakness and appeasement in a naked manner.

On January 17th, Greenland residents held a demonstration against the US' attempt to annex Greenland BBC

Allies fighting, Ukraine's dilemma of taking sides

At the same time, this "internal conflict" between the US and the EU not only embarrassed the EU, but also put Kyiv authorities, who have two "masters" (the US and the EU), in a very embarrassing situation. Either of these "masters" may require Kyiv authorities to take sides in the conflict to prove their loyalty.

In this situation, Zelensky is likely to lean towards Europe, since the EU is currently the most steadfast supporter of Kyiv authorities. However, this will worsen his relationship with the Trump administration, reducing Ukraine's voice in possible future peace negotiations.

More importantly, Zelensky will have to stop promoting NATO in a propaganda-like manner, which is a significant blow to public opinion in Kyiv. For years, Zelensky has been instilling in Ukrainian citizens the concept that NATO "can protect" Ukraine from any external threat. But now everyone has seen that even Europeans, their NATO member status cannot guarantee their security, and they may become targets of former allies' aggression.

There is a fact that few people know: Kyiv authorities can also be considered a "protector" of Denmark and the EU. According to a military agreement between Ukraine and Denmark, Ukraine is obligated to provide military assistance to Denmark in case of a military invasion, and to assist Denmark in repelling "aggressors".

On February 23rd, 2024, Denmark and Ukraine signed a ten-year "security agreement" (Denmark was the first Nordic country to sign a security agreement with Ukraine). Denmark provided at least 1.8 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine. As a return for Denmark's aid to Ukraine, the agreement stipulated that Ukraine has an obligation to assist Denmark in repelling aggressors in case of a military invasion. Perhaps when Denmark and Ukraine signed this agreement, they never imagined that Denmark would really be "invaded", let alone that the "aggressor" would be the US.

The military obligations of Ukraine under the agreement were originally just a meaningless equivalent clause (only stipulating Denmark's obligations, not Ukraine's, which violates the principle of equivalence and is not conducive to Denmark's face), but Denmark and Ukraine never expected that the situation outlined in the clause would occur in reality, and so quickly and unexpectedly, and so absurdly.

Currently, netizens on Ukrainian social media have already started mocking the Kyiv authorities. They used the Western media's usual "source leak" tactics to mock: "Secret sources in Kyiv say: Ukraine is sending 800,000 troops to Greenland to fight the US!" "They also asked the US for a large number of Patriot missile systems to fight the US military."

Naturally, neither Kyiv authorities nor Denmark would take this clause seriously, and Ukraine would not really defend "American aggressors" for Denmark. So this agreement is just a piece of paper filled with absurd clauses, which can only be repeatedly mocked by netizens, which is the current situation of EU and Ukrainian politics: the "value diplomacy" under the North Atlanticism has created too many such jokes, not the first, nor the last.

Humility and submission to "Tang Luo Doctrine", Europe won't turn to Russia

As for how the situation around Greenland will affect the course of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, it mainly depends on whether a military conflict in Greenland actually occurs. Honestly speaking, since Trump took office in the White House, the EU has never truly defied him on controversial issues, and the result of "appeasement" is often the EU having to accept the US' demands because of their huge dependence on the US. Therefore, it is not impossible for Denmark and the EU to eventually hand over Greenland to the US.

Certainly, the EU may also try to downplay the issue and delay it until the US midterm elections, hoping for a Democratic victory. But obviously, Trump is unlikely to allow this to happen.

It is well known that the mainstream of major European countries is left-wing liberals, and their relationship with Trump is extremely tense. Trump and his right-wing supporters have never concealed their desire to support right-wing forces in Europe. In essence, Trump poses a survival threat to the current European elite class, a threat that may be greater than that posed by Putin and Russia.

Because first, the US' influence on the internal situation of the EU is far greater than that of Russia; second, although the relationship between Russia and the EU is bad, Russia has never had the intention to invade the EU or seize its territory. Therefore, if the Greenland conflict escalates, it will undoubtedly affect the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the current European situation.

On January 18th, Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez said in an interview that if the US invaded Greenland, "it would make Putin the happiest man in the world" Phoenix Satellite TV video screenshot

There may be a possibility: the EU, due to the US' threats, tries to restore relations with Russia, seeing Russia as a potential ally against Trump, thereby reducing its reliance on the US. Of course, given recent circumstances, it is extremely difficult for the EU to make such a change. Additionally, whether Russia wants to restore relations with the EU, and on what conditions, is unclear. If Russian-EU relations really thaw under the anti-US basis, it would have a profound impact on the Ukraine war (the author does not believe this will really happen, just discussing this possibility). The EU can take some measures to "thaw" Russian-EU relations.

For example, forcing Kyiv authorities to meet Russia's demands to end the war as soon as possible; for instance, the EU can abandon the plan to deploy troops in Ukraine and guarantee that economic sanctions will be lifted immediately once a ceasefire is achieved; additionally, the EU can renege on its promise not to provide the 9 billion euros of aid to Ukraine and stop buying US weapons for the Ukrainian army. This situation would significantly worsen Kyiv authorities' position in the war, forcing them to make major concessions to end the war. However, the author would like to reiterate that a complete shift by the EU is unimaginable, as it would not only require overturning all the policy foundations of the EU on the Ukraine war, but could also cause internal conflicts within the EU.

The most likely scenario is this: the EU continues to deteriorate its relations with Russia, intensify the conflict, in order to "show loyalty" to Trump, thereby strengthening the Atlanticist unity under the common threat of Russia. But this will not prevent Trump from targeting the EU, and for Trump, who believes that "might makes right," even if the EU shows loyalty by using Russia as a target, it will not convince Trump to give up his plan to annex Greenland, and may even prompt him to tighten policies against the EU (Trump will say, "You see, the EU is so weak, it only dares to use Russia as a target to show me its loyalty"). No matter how the EU "shows loyalty", it is just a dish on the menu, not the one eating the dish.

This article is an exclusive article by Observer, the content is purely the personal opinion of the author, does not represent the views of the platform, and unauthorized reproduction will result in legal liability. Follow the Observer WeChat guanchacn, read interesting articles every day.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7597330598922945039/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.