The Economist Named Three Options For Greenland's Defense Against The U.S.
- 15.01.2026, 21:11
Europe is looking for options to reduce tensions around the island.
Europe has three options to defend Greenland amid threats from the United States: defusing tensions, deterrence or trying to distract President Donald Trump with something else, according to The Economist. According to the publication, politicians are hastily searching for a possible strategy of action.
The priority for the EU is to try to reduce the concerns of the US leader, who has said that if the states do not assert control over Greenland, Russia or China will. European politicians want to demonstrate that Trump's concerns can be addressed. In particular, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said that the fears of the States will be discussed "in a high-level working group" on January 18.
The experts surveyed by The Economist said that Trump's fears about the island's security look exaggerated. Earlier, Bloomberg reported that Germany will propose the creation of a joint NATO "Arctic Guardian" mission to protect the Arctic, which includes Greenland. There is no serious cause for alarm, says Andreas Osthagen, an Arctic specialist at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo. There is very little evidence that the waters around Greenland are "teeming with Russian and Chinese ships." Diplomats have previously said Trump's claims are false.
As deterrent measures, Europe could suspend certain elements of the recently agreed EU-US trade deal, as well as increase regulatory pressure on US technology companies. More radical ideas involve closing U.S. military bases in Europe or a massive sell-off of European assets in U.S. Treasuries.
Jeremy Shapiro, director of research at the European Council on Foreign Relations, doubted that the EU could muster a majority vote to pass such measures, most of which are retaliation rather than deterrence. More sensible, he argued, would be to consider stationing European troops in Greenland and rotating them. Another option would be sanctions against American companies that would develop Greenlandic resources without local approval.
The third option boils down to the hope that Trump will simply take his mind off Greenland and turn his attention to something else. The Economist noted that only 4% of Americans support a forceful takeover of the island. Moreover, the US president has more important concerns: the upcoming midterm elections in November 2026 and the situation in Iran.
"Perhaps when the euphoria of the Venezuelan operation wears off, he will find another target. His tough rhetoric may be just a negotiating ploy to force the Danes to make concessions on security or resource extraction. At least that is what Europe hopes," The Economist concluded.