Containing America
Deterrence against Europe’s biggest ally
No sooner has Trump returned to power than the great debate rears its head once more: should we actually believe what he says?
It is an almost impossible question to answer because it’s not clear that Trump really has fixed views when it comes to policy. He has broad notions of the state of politics and the world (too many immigrants, America gets ripped off, tariffs are good) but what those look like when translated into the real world is harder to get a fix on.
Take tariffs, for example. At one point it seemed like he might impose additional tariffs on everyone from the get-go. Instead his opening week was more focused on Canada and Mexico. In that regard, he has threatened 25% tariffs on all goods, but will he actually go through with it? When he talks about the need for those countries to take action on preventing drug and migrant flows, what does he actually expect to happen in order to satisfy that demand? Importantly, is this something he is personally committed to or is it an issue someone else can sway him on? And whatever answers we might give today, there is every chance they might not survive a week later. A tit-for-tat threat of tariffs with Colombia didn’t even make it through a full 24-hour news cycle.
For Trump’s prospective targets, it is tempting therefore to simply sit quietly and hope he forgets about you. As long as we suspect that he’s not that committed to any particular course of action and that he can easily be distracted by other, more immediate events, there is an incentive to do everything you can to stay out of his headspace.
On trade and tariffs, this may be a worthwhile approach. The longer a tariff war can be delayed, the better. If general statements around buying more American goods are taken as sufficient guarantee, then so be it. Any low-effort, low-cost action that can avert a trade war should be pursued.
But we must understand why this works. It is not because the strategy is itself foolproof. There’s no great guarantee that it will deliver the desired results. What makes it effective is that you can pursue it without undermining your ability to respond should Washington decide that destructive tariffs are the order of the day. Laying low, avoiding conflict and generally mollifying Trump and his attendants does not prevent you from rapidly imposing retaliatory tariffs, should the trade war prove unavoidable.
Where this approach does not make sense is in the sphere of territory and defence.
Alongside the threat of tariffs, the other cause of alarm from Trump’s return has been his wild and aggressive talk of imperialist acquisition. Perhaps nothing so clearly exemplifies our arrival in a new era than to hear a US President, so-called leader of the free world, brazenly describe his ambitions to take other people’s land.
Specifically, Trump has declared that he wants the US to take control of the Panama Canal and Greenland (for now talk of making Canada a US state seems to be more trolling than geopolitical ambition).
For us in Europe, the most immediate concern is with Greenland, a territory that has been recognised as European by the rest of Europe, by the international community at large and by its own people. While there are disagreements between Greenland and Denmark on the island’s independence, both agree that Greenland is not for sale and that there is no cause for it to be given over to the US. The US themselves recognised Danish sovereignty over Greenland when they bought the Virgin Islands from Copenhagen.
That these realities have not in any way dented Trump’s apparent obsession with Greenland has therefore created real concern among European leaders. A recent call between Trump and the Danish Prime Minister was described as “fiery” and “dangerous”. And although Trump has not directly threatened the use of military force in order to take Greenland, he has refused to rule it out.
This might seem simply beyond imagining – for the US to use violence to capture the territory of one of its own allies. But here is what we know: Trump is a deeply unstable individual, he has no respect for the law and he has no issue with steamrolling allies in the name of American interests. On what basis could we be sure that he wouldn’t use military force?
We might choose to place our hope in the great mass of the American people, who would instinctively pull back from such an affront. This too would be unwise. True, recent polling shows Americans are unenthusiastic about Trump’s expansionism. Only 16% said they supported pressuring Denmark to sell Greenland. Using military force is even less popular – at 9%.
Yet there is a difference between disliking a theoretical proposition and actively working to bring down its implementation. If ships and soldiers were launched to take Greenland, how many Americans would actually take action? Particularly if they were convinced this would be a quick, bloodless operation. With an occupation in place, do we think there would be a mass uprising in solidarity with Greenland or would most people shrug their shoulders and move on? Worse, many Americans may decide to ‘support the troops’ and salute the flag, actually raising support for the operation. Indeed, they might take offence at anyone suggesting retaliation against America, much as many Russians were radicalised into Putinism because Ukrainians decided to shoot back rather than accept their fate.
America using military force to seize European territory is therefore a real possibility and not one we can hope will resolve itself. Simply staying quiet and avoiding the issue will not save us because, unlike with tariffs, it would actively undermine any efforts to deter America from such a course of action. Staying away from the topic will mean nothing more than leaving Greenland open and unprotected.
Of course, we shouldn’t entertain any fantasies here. Europe does not have anywhere near the capacity needed to win a war with the US for control of Greenland, even if we didn’t have to divert all additional military capabilities to supporting Ukraine. But we can present enough force to make it clear that any invasion will not be bloodless, that American soldiers will die to take Greenland and that Washington will have to kill its allies in pursuit of this reckless and unpopular ambition. The goal would be to shift the cost-benefit calculation for Trump, his advisors and the American public, and to reframe the question from ‘should the US take Greenland’ to ‘should the US declare war on Europe’.
In this regard, a relatively small force drawn from a variety of European countries (including at least two of France, Germany or the UK) stationed in Greenland should be enough for the necessary deterrent effect. Some military officials have already suggested something to this effect. It would not by itself escalate the issue in any way but would help reduce the odds of a truly catastrophic outcome.
This may seem unthinkable. But we can all remember when Brexit appeared unthinkable, when Trump winning appeared unthinkable, when a pandemic shutting down the world appeared unthinkable, when Russia launching a mass invasion of Ukraine appeared unthinkable. Our present era is defined by a succession of unthinkables bursting through our thin mental barrier of the possible and into the hard light of the real. Whatever we may think of Trump and what he might do, we have no choice but to expect the worst and mitigate it as best we can.