The ambition of former US President Donald Trump to acquire Greenland has sent ripples across the international community, placing European leaders in a precarious "double-bind" as they navigate the need to maintain US support for Ukraine while upholding fundamental principles of sovereignty and international law. For the past year, securing Trump's favor has been a top priority for European nations, particularly concerning Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine, for which US military assistance is deemed indispensable.

This strategic calculus has led to difficult compromises, including enduring punitive tariffs imposed by Trump. Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade, explicitly linked these trade decisions to broader security concerns, including Ukraine and geopolitical volatility. The same delicate balancing act is evident in the unfolding saga over Greenland, a vast semi-autonomous Danish territory. As the White House openly discussed options for its acquisition, including military force, Europeans found themselves caught between defending Denmark's territorial integrity and risking Trump's ire, which could jeopardize crucial US engagement in Ukraine.

The precarity was highlighted at a recent "Coalition of the Willing" meeting in Paris, convened by French President Emmanuel Macron to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine. The presence of Trump's chief negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, underscored the US's transactional approach. Despite calls from journalists about Europe's ability to trust America given the threats against Greenland, both Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized "operational convergence" and "excellent progress" on Ukraine, cautiously reaffirming trust in the US as an ally. Starmer notably referred to a joint statement by European leaders, including Denmark, which obliquely reminded the US to uphold "the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders" – the very tenets Moscow violates in Ukraine – without explicitly condemning Trump's designs on Greenland.

The muted European response mirrors their reaction to the US operation that removed Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela just days prior. With the exception of Spain, most European nations focused on Venezuela's democratic transition rather than condemning the intervention as a breach of international law. Privately, officials admitted that confronting Trump over Maduro's removal would have been counterproductive amidst efforts to secure Ukraine. However, experts like Markus Ziener from the German Marshall Fund warn that this "walking-on-eggs approach" is unsustainable regarding Greenland, a territory belonging to a NATO and EU member. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has unequivocally stated that any annexation would "collapse overnight" the entire security architecture forged post-World War II.

Trump's rationale for acquiring Greenland centers on US national security, claiming, without evidence, that it is "covered with Russian and Chinese ships." The White House has confirmed that all options remain on the table, including military force. While Greenland's sparse population and lack of its own military might make a swift military operation feasible, defense analysts universally agree that the fallout would be monumental. Such an act by one NATO member against another would constitute an "existential" crisis for the alliance and a blatant violation of international law. Former US officials, like Mick Mulroy, emphasized that Greenland is a treaty ally and predicted strong resistance from lawmakers using the War Powers Act to prevent such a move.

An alternative considered by the Trump administration is to purchase Greenland. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly favors this option, though both Nuuk and Copenhagen maintain that Greenland is not for sale. A purchase would be a highly complex endeavor, requiring substantial congressional appropriation and a two-thirds Senate vote for treaty approval, in addition to potential EU sign-off. The exorbitant cost, potentially billions or trillions of US dollars, could also prove unpopular with Trump's "America First" base. While a unilateral deal is theoretically possible, experts deem it highly unlikely to be consistent with international law without Greenlandic participation.

A more likely "influence campaign" has also been suggested, aiming to encourage Greenland's independence from Denmark, followed by a partnership with the US. While polls suggest many Greenlanders desire independence, few wish to become part of the US. US intelligence agencies are reportedly intensifying surveillance on Greenland's independence movement. However, Danish analyst Hans Tito Hansen believes any campaign short of military action would fail as long as the Greenlandic population opposes it, noting that the island is more likely to rejoin the European Union than become part of the US.

The broader implications of Trump's actions extend to the very foundations of global security. His renewed calls for US control of Greenland, coupled with the unilateral removal of Venezuela's Maduro and the seizure of Russian oil tankers in European waters, underscore a disregard for established norms. Trump has launched ferocious attacks on NATO allies for not meeting defense spending targets, asserting that the "DJT-rebuilt USA" is the only nation Russia and China fear. He has formalized a "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting American dominance in the Western Hemisphere, viewing the Atlantic and Caribbean as "American lakes" where the US claims the right to board any vessel it deems a threat. This expansionist ideology, characterized by "domination and expansion," as columnist Zoe Williams suggests, raises profound questions about the future of international alliances and the global order.