For more than a year, Europe has become accustomed to living trapped in an uncomfortable balance where depends on the United States for its security through NATO, to sustain the Ukrainian effort and, ultimately, for the strategic architecture that has protected it since the Cold War.
Now Greenland has done jump into the air part of the rhetoric.
Europe and the counterattack. The crisis has erupted when Trump has returned to ignite a trade war using Greenland as an excuse and as an ultimatum: either some type of “agreement” that brings the island closer to the United States is accepted, or tariffs arrive first from 10% and after 25% a group of European countries designated by a minimal but symbolic gesture, to participate in Arctic maneuvers with Denmark.
What until recently many in Europe preferred to interpret as bravado or negotiating tactics becomes an explicit message of political pressure that no longer leaves room for the fantasy of appeasement. And there appears the real change: what the Ukrainian war had not completely achieved (a frontal European response to American reprisals) Greenland is doing itbecause the coup is not against a geopolitical adversary but against alliesand because it puts Europe before a brutal choice: accept the blackmail and normalize it, or respond even if it hurts, even knowing that it continues to depend on Washington for its security and to contain Russia.
The European bazooka. There is no doubt, the European reaction It is not born from enthusiasm, but from the feeling that there are no longer many other solutions: Greenland cannot be “handed over”, nor can Denmark sell an autonomous territory against the will of its population, and the very idea that an acquisition could be forced due to commercial threats opens a pandora’s box that affects the entire continent. In this context, Brussels dusts off for the first time his toughest tool, the so-called anti-coercion instrumentdesigned precisely to punish political pressures through rapid and forceful economic measures.
on the table two paths appear that mark a leap in mentality: reactivate a package of tariffs worth of 93,000 million of euros already prepared and, if the escalation continues, go further of goods and target services, investment and even access to the European market for large American companies. The European message tries to be twofold, seeking a de-escalation that avoids an open clash, but making it clear that, if Trump turns trade into a method of extortion, Europe can also respond strongly.
The crash that nobody wanted. The most disturbing thing about this episode is not only the economic impact of a tariff war, but the strategic fracture that it implies: Europe knows that a serious trade conflict with the United States will would infect NATOto Ukraine and the entire deterrence architecture against Russia.
That is why the continent moves cautiouslycalling emergency meetings, preparing the ground for talks in Davos and even delaying previously agreed trade detente measures. But the core of the problem is that Trump is not negotiating a percentage or a clause: you are elevating a territorial objective to a national priority, presenting it as a requirement to “improve the security” of the Arctic, and implicitly denying that Europe can guarantee it. In this framework, Europe tries not to break the bridge, but assumes that it can no longer behave as if the bridge were indestructible.
The sovereignty of Greenland. We’ve told it before: while Washington talks about “acquisition,” Greenland insists that its future belongs to them, that many they want more independencenot change flag. This point is essential because it explains why Europe doesn’t want to give in: it is not just about Danish pride or formalisms, but about sovereignty and democratic legitimacy, as well as an explosive precedent within the Union itself.
The tariff threattherefore, works as an attempt to isolate Denmark and make it the weak link, although it has the opposite effect: it reinforces the idea that if you are attacked over a strategic issue, you will be respond as a block. And therein lies the paradox: instead of dividing, the pressure forces coordination, especially between Paris and Berlin, which push a harder line while others ask for time to see if Trump offers a “way out” before the punishment is activated.
The “Ozempic bomb”. Amid the noise of bases, submarines and Arctic routes, the unexpected weapon appears: Denmark is not a commercial giant, but it exports products to the United States that directly affect the pocket and everyday lifeand that turns any tariff into a kind of political boomerang. The half of its sales Recent visits to Washington focus on medicines, vaccines, insulin and related products, because Novo Nordisk is there, the Danish economic engine and the factory of the global phenomenon Ozempic and Wegovy.
That dependency converts Denmark in a kind of de facto “pharmaceutical state”: Your private growth and employment largely revolve around that industry, and any trade turbulence impacts both sides. If Trump makes these medicines more expensive, the blow will not stay in Europe: it enters the US market like health inflation and social unrest, just where the political margin is most fragile. And that is why Ozempic, more than a product, works as symbol of interdependence reality that makes a tariff war not just a lever, but rather a grenade.
Lego and other reminders. The same effect is seen with Lego and other products Danes beloved in the United States, or with less visible but critical sectors such as hearing aids and certain medical equipment. In the real world, supply chains do not respect emotional boundaries: many parts are manufactured in different countries, assembled in others, and sold in markets that depend on global logistics.
This means that tariffs punish not only the “enemy” exporter, but also companies, distributors and consumers. Trump can imagine squeezing Denmark to bend it, but the pressure leaks out in prices and disruptions in the US market itself, and also erodes the relationship with an ally that already offers military access in Greenland and has been historically loyal even in American wars, paying a disproportionate human cost in per capita terms.
Europe and its lever. The end result, for now, is a Europe that enters a field that he had been avoiding for years: assuming that trade is not just economics, but power, and that, if the United States uses it as instrument of intimidationthe continent has to learn to respond or it is condemned to be pressured again and again. Therein lies the crux and heart of this crisis: it is not a simple struggle for a frozen island, but a test of whether Europe can defend itself without breakingand whether the Western alliance remains a community of interests or becomes a relationship of force.
In that sense, Greenland has achieved what an invasion had not achieved so clearly in the relationship with Washington: that Europe, for the first time in a long time, is willing to respond with retaliation and show that it also has that “bazooka” with a more explosive projectile than a tank or a missile.
Image | RawPixel, Chemist4U, Roderick Eime
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings