I wrote these answers to questions from a reporter from the Turkish news agency Anadolu (AA) on January 7. The central idea is that the EU could cancel the July trade deal with the US. Since few people in Finland or Europe follow Turkish media, I am publishing these answers as a blog.
1) Trump’s latest comments on Greenland came after US military intervention in Venezuela and many fear military action could be taken against Greenland as well. Would you say US attack on Greenland is a possibility and how would things play out?
The latest information is that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told members of the US Congress that President Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to buy Greenland from Denmark and is not planning immediate military action to take over the island. If this is true, then threatening to use force would be just a way to pressure Denmark and Greenland into agreeing to negotiations and some “deal”. On the other hand, the speeches of Trump and his administration have been aggressive and volatile. If someone says that his threatening speeches are just bluffs with no basis, then what is their meaning? Moreover, the daring and illegal operation in Venezuela was carried out in an unforeseeable manner. All in all, it is impossible to rule out the use of force, but I also have no solid grounds for anticipating exactly what the Trump administration is planning. What we know is that US intelligence agencies have reportedly increased surveillance and influence efforts in Greenland, prompting multiple Danish diplomatic protests and inclusion of related concerns in Denmark’s annual threat assessment. And what seems certain is that the Trump administration is unlikely to simply back down from its demands.
2) What measures can Denmark, EU or other European countries take to deter US interest in Greenland? Can they and should they?
The EU could well take a unified, unambiguous position on this issue and state that it considers such an act sufficient grounds to terminate the trade agreement signed in July 2025. The trade agreement was disadvantageous for the EU and, at best, could be read as a sign of goodwill. In Europe, it has been widely conceived as a humiliation. Moreover, the promises it contains to invest in the US and buy fossil fuels and weapons exceed the EU’s competencies (the EU has no authority to decide on investments or purchases by member states or companies). Further, investing in fossil fuels is utterly contrary to the idea of the green transition. As Trump’s USA seems to understand only interest-based bargaining and “deals”, the possibility of terminating the trade deal would provide a clear message about what the forced takeover of Greenland would mean for the future of US-EU cooperation.
3) European countries and EU offered supportive statements for Denmark and Greenland, however opted against directly confronting US which led to many criticisms (such as the case of Mike Tapp, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office). What are your comments on that?
US aggression or even the mere threat of aggression raises the question of what EU solidarity means in practice. Although Greenland itself is not part of the EU (it is considered an overseas country and territory associated with the EU), Denmark is a member. It might even be possible that future developments could raise some discussion over the EU’s mutual assistance clause. Would that clause (Treaty article 42(7)) be relevant and, if so, what would follow from it, especially given that the same clause also refers to NATO?
If the EU chooses the path of silent, albeit reluctant, submission, it will be another step towards the disintegration of the EU, which the Trump administration seems to be pursuing anyway. There are many other big questions related to this issue, not least the Russo-Ukrainian war. In its national security strategy, the Trump administration presents itself as a mediator in the conflict between Russia and Europe. This framing of the situation is highly problematic for the EU and its member states. The EU should also take a more independent line in shaping the situation and managing the prevailing narrative. In my view, this would require the EU to engage directly in peace negotiations with Russia.
Many issues are interconnected, and the Greenland issue cannot be isolated from broader questions concerning the global future. Ideally, the EU should be able to see beyond the immediate situation at hand and present a constructive vision of a cooperative future for the world and global governance, but before that can happen, so many changes within the EU seem necessary first. The current EU does not seem capable of re-forming its will.
4) How are the public opinion in Denmark and other European countries are affected by US claim in Greenland. Would you say anti-American sentiment would grow in Europe?
“Anti-Americanism” technically refers to negative attitudes toward the US as a country or its people rather than simply criticism of US policy or leadership. European opinion data indicates increasingly unfavourable views of the US, especially of Trump and his administration, and seems to mix elements of both to varying degrees. From the point of view of Finland and Sweden, which have just joined NATO, the paradox is that in Europe, the US is now increasingly considered as a “necessary partner” rather than an “ally”. Forcibly taking over Greenland, or even simply forcing Greenland and Denmark into some “deal”, would, and likely will, deepen these trends. This will also call NATO itself into question.
