President Donald Trump’s quest to control Greenland is driving the news — and this time, it’s not a punchline. Trump has backed off threats of using force to take the island in favor of what he calls a framework that will give the U.S. access to the island. And on Friday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the situation is still “serious” adding that the Scandinavian nation has “a path that we are in the process of trying with the Americans. We have always said that we are of course willing to make an agreement.” But whether the deal will work remains vague. Meanwhile, all of this has resulted in a flood of questions in Washington and abroad about whether Trump’s threats have been strategy, bluster, or something in between — and the long-term consequences for America’s standing with allies. We attempt to answer some of the most asked questions about the issue. What’s Trump’s interest in Greenland all about? Trump’s obsession with obtaining Greenland — which for decades has been controlled by U.S. ally Denmark — is ostensibly about keeping Americans safe. The president and his advisers increasingly describe Greenland as essential to ensuring American – and even European – security against encroaching threats from China and Russia. Why? Greenland sits astride key Arctic sea lanes that are becoming increasingly navigable as ice melts. It also hosts Pituffik Space Base, a critical U.S. military installation for missile warning, space surveillance and Arctic operations. To Trump, Greenland represents leverage: strategic location, military value and untapped natural resources. His interest in the island isn’t new. In 2019, Trump publicly floated buying Greenland, later describing it as “a large real estate deal.” At the time, it was mostly dismissed as a pipe dream from a mercurial president. But six years later, the once frivolous threat has alienated European allies and become one of the administration’s most important goals. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a global risk assessment firm in New York, said that Trump having captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by force has made his assertive “Donroe Doctrine” a “brand” — and emboldened him to take a more hostile posture toward Greenland and European allies. “He’s all in on having the brand,” said Bremmer, who is in Davos speaking with European allies. “Now he needs to populate it and have more ornaments on the tree. There has to be a next thing for the Donroe Doctrine. And Greenland was that thing.” Was Trump serious about invading Greenland? No. There is no legal or political pathway for the U.S. to seize Greenland without violating the sovereignty of NATO allies. Doing so would essentially end the alliance — not to mention violate international law. Trump and his aides were never seriously contemplating an invasion but refusing to rule it out publicly was an effort to increase Trump’s negotiating leverage. In the process, he incensed European leaders, who responded more forcefully than they ever had to his pressure, sending troops to Greenland for military exercises and weighing whether to deploy the European Union’s anti-economic coercion “bazooka” in response to increased Trump’s threat to impose U.S. tariffs. “For his first year, Europe has bit its tongue but worked with Trump to keep him on side,” said Charles Kupchan, a Europe specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. “When the president of the United States is threatening to invade a NATO ally, it’s time for a different approach.” The stronger response worked. With global markets starting to plummet over fears of an escalating crisis, Trump finally made clear in his speech to Davos on Wednesday that he would not look to acquire Greenland with military force. But Trump’s new assurances have not fully allayed European anger or ongoing anxieties about a leader known for changing his mind and who has repeatedly treated force, coercion and brinkmanship as negotiating tools rather than a last resort. Trump’s governing style thrives on maximalist threats followed by selective walk-backs, leaving allies and adversaries alike unsure which statements are bluster, which are trial balloons and which could harden into policy. And so with this president, even ideas he claims are off the table, never fully are. What does Greenland — and Europe — think about all of this? They’re pissed. Greenland is a semi-autonomous, self-governing territory within Denmark, and its leaders have repeatedly said the island is not for sale. Local officials have also bristled at rhetoric that treats Greenland as an object rather than a society of 56,000 people with their own political aspirations, including long-term independence. “We are not in the situation where we are thinking that a takeover of the country might happen overnight,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said at a press conference earlier this month. “You cannot compare Greenland to Venezuela. We are a democratic country.” At the same time, Greenland’s government welcomes U.S. investment, security cooperation, and diplomatic engagement — so long as it comes with respect for Greenlandic autonomy. The Trumpian approach has strained that balance, fueling local skepticism even as U.S. military and economic ties deepen. Though Trump has backed off his invasion threats, “the damage was done,” Bremmer said. “They feel completely disrespected. They feel like Trump treats them with contempt.” How’s this playing in America? The reaction at home has been equally searing. “If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Copenhagen, said last week. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Trump’s Greenland quest “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17 percent of Americans support the effort to acquire Greenland, while 47 percent disapprove and 35 percent remain unsure. Is the “framework” deal going to put an end to the effort to take Greenland? Trump announced in a vague post this week that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had agreed to a “framework of a future Arctic deal” on Greenland, which he described as giving the U.S. significant access to the island. But Denmark and Greenland have both strongly rejected any notion that sovereignty is negotiable or that a concrete transfer of control is underway. Though details are sparse, Trump said the U.S. got “everything we wanted,” adding that the deal is “infinite” and will last “forever.” He told reporters he’ll give more clarity on whether Denmark is on board in two weeks. How does it affect our European alliances? It reinforces a core anxiety many European allies already have about Trump: U.S. security commitments can blur into coercion when they collide with his personal priorities. “The European leaders believe it is primarily about ego,” Bremmer said. “When Trump is acting as an individual and not acting on behalf of the country, you can see how this is going to create conflict. It’s set up to create mistrust and conflict and undermine the relationship.” Even as Trump and his advisers insist his hunger for Greenland aligns with NATO interests, European leaders have warned that questioning a country’s sovereignty — even rhetorically — crosses a red line. In joint statements and public remarks, officials in NATO countries have stressed that Arctic security cooperation does not confer consent over territory, pushing back on what they see as a dangerous conflation of alliance coordination and unilateral pressure. “The American leadership of the transatlantic community was based on mutual trust, common values and interests, not on domination and coercion,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday. “That is why it was accepted by all of us. Let’s not lose it, dear friends,” adding that is what he conveyed to other EU leaders on Thursday. Trump’s Greenland push has only intensified a clear undercurrent of administration-wide disdain for Europe, articulated over his first year in office via speeches, social media posts and an official national security strategy. In the weeks following his renewed Greenland push, Trump has only further alienated our European allies, claiming NATO has not been in America’s corner in the past. “We’ve never needed them,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Friday. “We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” More than 40 countries following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deployed troops to Afghanistan when the U.S. invoked NATO Article 5 for the first time ever. At peak years, allied forces made up roughly half of all non-Afghan troops in the country. More than 1,100 non-U.S. coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan, alongside many thousands wounded. Canada alone lost 158 soldiers and the U.K. lost 457. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer slammed Trump’s remarks Friday morning. “I consider President Trump’s remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling,” Starmer said. “I am not surprised they have caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured and, in fact, across the country.”

After two weeks of escalating threats toward Europe, President Donald Trump blinked on Wednesday, backing away from the unthinkable brink of a potential war against a NATO ally during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Trump’s vow not to use military force to seize Greenland from Denmark eased European fears about a worst-case scenario and prompted a rebound on Wall Street. And his declaration hours later after meeting with NATO’s leader that he may back off of his tariff threat having secured the “framework” of an agreement over Greenland continued a day of backpedaling on one of the most daring gambits of his presidency to date. But his continued heckling of allies as “ungrateful” for not simply giving the U.S. “ownership and title” of what he said was just “a piece of ice” did little to reverse a deepening sentiment among NATO leaders and other longtime allies that they can no longer consider the United States — for 80 years the linchpin of the transatlantic alliance — a reliable ally. “The takeaway for Europe is that standing up to him can work. There is relief, of course, that he’s taking military force off the table, but there is also an awareness that he could reverse himself,” said a European official who attended Trump’s speech and, like others interviewed for this report, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Trump’s promises and statements are unreliable but his scorn for Europe is consistent. We will have to continue to show resolve and more independence because we can no longer cling to this illusion that America is still what we thought it was.” Trump’s abrupt about-face after weeks of refusing to take military intervention off the table comes a day after Greenland shock waves sent global markets plunging, wiping out over $1.2 trillion in value on the S&P 500 alone. The president’s policy shift mirrored a similar moment in April, when he quickly reversed sweeping tariffs after a market downfall tied to his policies. If Trump’s refusal to use the military to threaten Greenland and the U.S.’s NATO allies holds, it would represent a win for administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who on Tuesday counseled the Davos set not to overreact or escalate the fight with Trump, assuring concerned Europeans that things would work out soon. The threat of force appeared to have the strong backing of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who offered the most forceful articulation of those desires in an interview this month where he claimed that America was the rightful owner of Greenland and insisted the “real world” was one “that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” But Miller aside, most saw the threat of force as an attempt to create leverage for an eventual negotiation. If Trump were to have pursued using military force, there could have been pushback from his closest allies like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, said a person close to the administration and granted anonymity to describe the private dynamics. “Do some senior administration people talk to their best friends in conservative world and media and basically say, ‘Yeah, I don’t know why we’re doing this?’ Sure, but I think those are all in confidence,” the person said. Increasingly, Europeans have been voicing their growing fears aloud. When Trump arrived in the snowy Swiss Alps Wednesday afternoon for this annual confab of business and political titans, the West remained on edge after the president announced last weekend that he intended to increase tariffs on several European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for military exercises. As they contemplated the fact that an American president was threatening the territorial sovereignty of one ally and turning to economic coercion tactics against others, European leaders strategized openly about retaliating in kind. That posture marked a major shift from Trump’s first year back in office, when European leaders put up a fight but ultimately and largely accepted his terms — NATO begrudgingly agreeing to spend more on defense, taking on all of the financial burden for Ukraine aid and the European Union accepting a 15 percent tariff on all exports to the U.S. — in order to keep the president from breaking with the alliance and abandoning Ukraine. But the president’s brazen challenge to Denmark over Greenland and shocking disregard for Europe’s territorial sovereignty amounted to a disruption that is orders of magnitude more concerning. Demanding that Denmark, a steadfast NATO ally, allow him to purchase Greenland — and, until Wednesday, holding out the prospect of using military force to seize it — threatened to cross a red line for Europe and effectively shatter 80 years of cooperation, upending an alliance structure that America largely built to avoid the very kind of imperialistic conquest Trump suddenly seems fixated on pursuing. “We’ve gone from uncharted territory to outer space,” said Charles Kupchan, the director of European studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to President Barack Obama. “This is not just strange and hard to understand. It borders on the unthinkable, and that’s why you’re seeing a different response from Europe than before Greenland was center stage.” Trump’s social media posts last weekend announcing that he intended to increase tariffs on the European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for training exercises drew harsh public responses from heads of state across Europe and prompted a flurry of private phone calls and even text messages — some of which the president shared on social media — urging him to work with them more constructively to address security in the Arctic. That didn’t stop Trump on Wednesday from continuing to assert an intention to acquire Greenland through negotiations, despite an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders being opposed to living under U.S. control. “Let’s not be too cheerful on him excluding violence, as that was outrageous in the first place,” said a second European official in Davos. “And his narrative on Greenland is BS. It should be called out.” Trump, who met with European leaders to discuss Greenland on Wednesday afternoon, suggested in his remarks that the U.S. acquiring the massive island between the Arctic and North Atlantic was in the best interests of Europe as well as America’s. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant, massive land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe,” he said. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” Trump continued. Those words did not appear to fully allay the growing anxieties of democratic leaders that the world is spinning in a new and frightening direction, away from decades of relative peace and stability and back to a prewar era of global conquest. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, addressing Davos on Tuesday ahead of Trump’s arrival, was emphatic in declaring that there is no going back. “Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry,” Carney said. “That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Calling for democratic nations to take steps to lessen their reliance on the U.S. and their vulnerability to pressure from this White House, Carney urged other leaders to accept a new reality that, in his view, the longstanding postwar order was already gone. “Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” Trump made it clear on Wednesday that he saw Carney’s remarks, alluding to Canada’s reliance on the U.S. and going as far to suggest that its safety continues to depend on American defense technology. “They should be grateful to us,” he said. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, next time you make your statement.” The implied threat, in a way, may have underscored the Canadian leader’s point. With persistent threats of higher tariffs from the White House even after Trump backed off his saber rattling over annexing the country, Canada has looked to rebalance its trade relationships with other countries, including China, to reduce its economic dependence on the U.S. In Europe, leaders may be following suit. Just last week, Brussels approved a landmark free trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries, a long-sought deal that took on greater urgency in recent months to provide Europe with a bulwark against Trump’s protectionism and coercive economic measures. There is still hope in Europe that Trump will eventually accept something less than U.S. ownership of Greenland, especially after his apparent walkbacks Wednesday on the threats of tariffs and military force. That could include accepting a standing offer from Denmark to boost America’s military presence on the island, not to mention economic cooperation agreements to develop natural resources there as climate change makes mineral deposits more accessible. But European leaders increasingly seem to accept that there are limits to their ability to control Trump — and are looking to hedge their reliance on the U.S. as urgently as possible. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister and secretary general of NATO, wrote this week that it’s time for Europe to shift its posture toward the U.S. from one of close allies to a more self-protective stance defined by a stronger military and reciprocal tariffs. “Mr. Trump, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, believes in power and power only,” he wrote, likening the U.S. president to the leaders of Russia and China. “Europe must be prepared to play by those same rules.” Trump’s threats against Denmark have obliterated the long-held view about the U.S., that after 80 years of standing up to imperialist conquerors from Adolf Hitler’s Germany to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Washington would always be the tip of the spear when it came to enforcing a world order founded on shared democratic ideals. Suddenly, that spear is being turned against its longtime allies. “The jewel in the crown of our power and of our role in the world has always been our alliance system,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a veteran of the State Department under the President Barack Obama administration who is now a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Shapiro noted that the U.S. has at times still employed hard power since the end of World War II, especially in its own hemisphere. But overall, American foreign policy has largely been defined by its reliance on soft power, which he said “ is much less expensive, it is much less coercive, it is much more moral and ethical, and it’s more durable.” Returning to the law of the jungle and a world where larger powers gobble up smaller ones, Shapiro continued, will make the U.S. more like Russia and China — the two countries he claims threaten U.S. interests in Greenland — and weaker over the long term. “Moving from our trusted methods to Putin’s methods is worse than a crime,” he said. “It’s an idiocy.”

France has called for NATO to hold a military exercise in Greenland and says it is “ready to contribute,” according to a statement from French President Emmanuel Macron’s office on Wednesday. The request comes as the transatlantic alliance is deeply upset over U.S. threats to take over the island and after U.S. President Donald Trump snubbed an invitation from the French president to join G7 leaders in Paris to iron out differences. When asked about the French request Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Macron should keep his focus at home “when the French budget is in shambles.” Trump is set to land in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday where he is expected to push again for an American takeover of the self-ruling Danish territory. Macron was in Davos on Tuesday, but did not stay for Trump’s visit, instead delivering a speech where he said he preferred “respect to bullies” and called on the European Union to “not hesitate” in using the Anti-Coercion Instrument against Washington to defend its interests. France has already sent a small military contingent to Greenland and has plans to send sea, air and land forces, though the details remain unclear. Troops from several European countries have already deployed to Greenland under Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise. Copenhagen on Monday boosted its military presence on the Arctic island, according to local press reports. Trump’s designs on Greenland, and more recent tariffs threats against Europeans who oppose them, have exposed how the alliance is ill-equipped for dealing with one member — in this case, its most powerful one — threatening another member. On Monday, NATO chief Mark Rutte  told reporters that the alliance is “not at all” in crisis, brushing off the standoff with Trump. “I think we are really working in the right direction,” Rutte said.

STRASBOURG — Donald Trump’s threats to slap tariffs on European countries that disagree with him on Greenland are “simply wrong,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday morning. Speaking to MEPs in Strasbourg, von der Leyen said the EU is aligned and “working together” with the U.S on the need to ensure security in the Arctic, and Brussels is planning “a massive European investment surge in Greenland” to support the local economy and boost its infrastructure.  “This is why the proposed additional tariffs are simply wrong,” von der Leyen said. She added that the EU wants to stop the crisis escalating as “a dangerous downward spiral between allies” would only “embolden the very adversaries we are both so committed to keeping out of our strategic landscape.” Von der Leyen’s comments come as EU leaders scramble to deal with Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and react to his announcement of 10 percent tariffs on goods from countries that sent troops to Nuuk.  “Europe prefers dialogue and solutions, but we are fully prepared to act, if necessary, with unity, urgency and determination,” she said.  The Commission president also said the EU needs to diversify its trade relationships and “reduce our dependencies.” The EU is negotiating trade deals with India and other countries that “will open massive opportunities for our businesses.” ”Our supply chains and derisking goals depend on it,” she added, hinting at the bloc’s highly interlinked trade connections with the U.S. The European Union is on track to get nearly half of its gas from the United States by the end of the decade, creating a major strategic vulnerability for the bloc as relations with Washington hit an all-time low, as POLITICO reported earlier this week.  Just a few hours before lawmakers vote on whether to send the Mercosur trade deal for legal review, which could stall the adoption process by up to two years, von der Leyen said the deal with the South American bloc will be beneficial for the dairy, wine, spirits and oil sectors, while the Commission has secured “strong” safeguards for other sensitive agri-food sectors.   “This is a deal that will bring benefits across our economy, across every member state. And it can shield Europe from the risks it faces, ensuring our prosperity and our security at the same time,” she said. 

The deployment of European troops in Greenland doesn’t alter U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to get his hands on the Arctic island, the White House said. “I don’t think troops in Europe impacts the president’s decision-making process or impact his goal of the acquisition of Greenland at all,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday when asked whether recent announcements of European boots on the ground would alter Trump’s calculus. This week, several European nations including France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands said they would send troops to Greenland to take part in a Danish military exercise — with some of them already there. Estonia is participating in the planning and “is ready to put boots on the ground if requested.” NATO is not involved in the military exercise, which is an inter-governmental drill. The U.S. president has repeatedly threatened the use of military force to seize the Arctic island, which he claims is at risk of falling into the hands of Russia and China. After meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House on Wednesday, the Danish foreign minister said Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron told the country’s armed forces earlier on Thursday that France would deploy land, air and naval assets to Greenland in the coming days. “France and Europeans must continue, wherever their interests are threatened, to be present without escalation, but uncompromising on respect for territorial sovereignty,” he said. The U.K. and Norway are publicly backing a push to set up a NATO mission dubbed Arctic Sentry that would increase the alliance’s footprint and reassure Trump of Europe’s commitment to security in the region.

France will boost its military presence in Greenland in the coming days, President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday, as U.S. President Donald Trump continues to ramp up pressure in his bid to annex the Danish territory. “An initial team of French soldiers is already on site and will be reinforced in the coming days by land, air and sea assets,” Macron told an audience of top military brass during his new year address to the armed forces. “France and Europeans must continue, wherever their interests are threatened, to be present without escalation, but uncompromising on respect for territorial sovereignty,” he added, speaking in Istres, an airbase in the south of France that hosts nuclear-capable warplanes. On Wednesday, several European nations including France, Germany, Sweden and Norway said they would send troops to Greenland to participate in a Danish military exercise, amid repeated threats by Trump that the U.S. could use force to seize the island. After a White House meeting on Wednesday, Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S., Denmark said. In an obvious jab at Trump, who he didn’t mention by name, Macron criticized “a new colonialism that is at work among some.” Europeans have the means to be less dependent on the U.S., he added, revealing that two-thirds of Ukraine’s intelligence capabilities are now provided by France. In an address to his Cabinet on Wednesday, Macron warned that if the United States seized Greenland from Denmark, it would trigger a wave of “unprecedented” consequences, a government spokesperson said. The French president convened a defense council meeting Thursday morning to discuss both the Iranian uprising and the situation in Greenland, POLITICO reported.  MORE MONEY FOR DEFENSE Macron started increasing defense spending again as soon as he was elected in 2017, even before Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine and NATO’s commitment to boost budgets. The French president confirmed that France would seek to increase defense spending by €36 billion between 2026 and 2030, adding he wants the updated military planning law to be voted by parliament by July 14. “This decade of French rearmament is bearing fruit … and rearmament efforts will continue,” he told the audience. However,  the military planning law has been delayed by France’s spiralling political crisis. It was initially scheduled for last fall and has already been put off several times. As well, the €6.7 billion boost for 2026 still hasn’t been approved by lawmakers, and it’s unclear whether (and when) the government will manage to convince MPs to pass this year’s budget. In another jab at Trump, Macron said Paris wasn’t increasing military expenditures to “please this or that ally, but based on our analysis of the threat.” That’s a reference to last year’s NATO decision to set a new defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP — following significant pressure from the U.S. president. The three main priorities for France’s spending boost are: to increase munition stocks; to develop sovereign capabilities in air defense, early warning systems, space and deep strikes; and to improve the ability of the armed forces to engage swiftly. “This year will be a test of credibility in many ways, and we are ready,” Macron said. SLAMMING THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY The French president, who has a history of shaking up the defense industry, also criticized the country’s military contractors — arguing some of them risked being “forced out of the market” for slow innovation and deliveries. “I want to ask even more of you. We need to produce faster, produce in volume, and further increase mass production with lighter systems and innovative methods,” Macron said. “I need an industry that does not consider the French armed forces as a captive customer. We may seek European solutions if they are faster or more efficient. We too must be more European in our own purchasing and in our industrial strategies.” The French state usually buys mostly French military equipment, but Paris is increasingly opening its wallet to other Europeans, most recently by signing a deal with Sweden’s Saab to purchase GlobalEye surveillance and control aircraft. France is also “late” when it comes to drones because French companies didn’t set up enough partnerships with Ukrainians and are now being overtaken by rivals, he said. Although he bashed France’s military industrial complex, Macron did pat Paris on the back for its long-standing skepticism of relying too much on the U.S. and its calls for strategic autonomy and a European pillar within NATO. “What was initially a French conviction in the face of the evolving threat has become obvious for Europeans,” Macron told the audience. “We were right to start, even on our own.”

BRUSSELS — Nothing to see here. That was the message from NATO chief Mark Rutte on Monday, just days after U.S. President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to take Greenland by force — a move that Denmark cautioned would spell the end of the transatlantic military alliance. NATO is “not at all” in crisis, Rutte told reporters during a visit to Zagreb, brushing off the standoff and saying: “I think we are really working in the right direction.” Trump on Friday warned the U.S. “may” have to choose between seizing Greenland and keeping NATO intact, marking the latest escalation of his long-running campaign to grab the giant Arctic island. Controlling Greenland is “what I feel is psychologically needed,” he added. The U.S. president’s bellicose rhetoric has put the alliance on the brink of an existential crisis, with the prospect of a military attack against an alliance member jolting NATO into largely uncharted waters.  EU defense chief Andrius Kubilius on Monday echoed those concerns. Any military takeover would be “the end of NATO,” he said, and have a “very deep negative impact … on our transatlantic relations.” Alongside its oil and critical mineral deposits, Trump has previously cited swarms of Russian and Chinese vessels near Greenland as driving the U.S.’s need to control the island.  Experts and intelligence reports largely dismiss those claims. But Rutte said there was “a risk that Russians and the Chinese will be more active” regionally.  “All allies agree on the importance of the Arctic and Arctic security,” he said, “and currently we are discussing … how to make sure that we give practical follow-up on those discussions.” On Wednesday, NATO countries asked the alliance to look into options for securing the Arctic, including shifting more military assets to the region and holding more military exercises in Greenland’s vicinity. The U.K. and Germany are reportedly in talks to send troops to the self-ruling Danish territory in an attempt to assuage Washington’s concerns. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen on Monday also said the territory “increase its efforts to ensure that the defense of Greenland takes place under the auspices of NATO.” Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, speaking alongside Rutte, said that “allies have to respect each other, including the U.S. as the largest NATO member.” But Rutte also heaped praise on the U.S. president, underscoring the near-impossible tightrope he continues to tread as he attempts to speak for all 32 members of the alliance. “Donald Trump is doing the right things for NATO by encouraging us all to spend more to equalize this,” he said, referencing the alliance’s defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP, agreed last year after intense pressure from Trump. “As [NATO] secretary-general, it is my role to make sure that the whole of the alliance is as secure and safe as possible,” he said. NATO has previously survived the 1974 Turkish invasion of Greek-allied Cyprus, a series of naval confrontations between the U.K. and Iceland over cod and several territorial disputes in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey climaxing in 1987. But an outright attack by its biggest and most well-armed member against another would be unprecedented.  “No provision [in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty] envisions an attack on one NATO ally by another one,” said one NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. It would mean “the end of the alliance,” they added.

BRUSSELS — European governments have launched a two-pronged diplomatic offensive to convince Donald Trump to back away from his claims on Greenland: by lobbying in Washington and pressing NATO to allay the U.S. president’s security concerns. The latest moves mark an abrupt change in Europe’s response to Trump’s threats, which are fast escalating into a crisis and have sent officials in Brussels, Berlin and Paris scrambling to sketch out an urgent way forward. Until now they have attempted to play down the seriousness of Trump’s ideas, fearing it would only add credence to what they hoped was mere rhetoric, but officials involved in the discussions say that has now changed. As if to underscore the shift, French President Emmanuel Macron became the most powerful European leader so far to starkly set out the challenges facing the continent. “The United States is an established power that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the international rules that it used to promote,” Macron said in his annual foreign policy address in Paris on Thursday. Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric this week, telling reporters on Sunday night “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” The president has repeatedly refused to rule out military intervention, something Denmark has said would spell the end of NATO ― an alliance of 32 countries, including the U.S., which has its largest military force. Greenland is not in the EU but is a semi-autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, which is an EU member. Most of the diplomacy remains behind closed doors. The Danish ambassador to the U.S., Jesper Møller Sørensen, and the Greenlandic representative in Washington, Jacob Isbosethsen, held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The two envoys are attempting to persuade as many of them as possible that Greenland does not want to be bought by the U.S. and that Denmark has no interest in such a deal, an EU diplomat told POLITICO. In an unusual show of dissent, some Trump allies this week publicly objected to the president’s proposal to take Greenland by military force. Danish officials are expected to provide a formal briefing and update on the situation at a meeting of EU ambassadors on Friday, two EU diplomats said. RUSSIAN, CHINESE INFLUENCE At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, NATO ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce the Arctic region, according to three NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. Trump claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence, and cited an alleged swarm of threatening ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory. Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. But U.S. Vice President JD Vance told reporters Thursday that Trump wants Europe to take Greenland’s security “more seriously,” or else “the United States is going to have to do something about it.” Europeans see finding a compromise with Trump as the first and preferred option. A boosted NATO presence on the Arctic island might convince the U.S. president that there is no need to own Greenland for security reasons. The Danish ambassador to the US and the Greenlandic representative in Washington held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images The NATO envoys meeting Thursday floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion into Greenland would have on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on the recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday even though it wasn’t on the formal agenda, the two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals expressed solidarity with Denmark, they added. Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — NATO countries asked the alliance to beef up its presence in the Arctic after the U.S. ramped up threats to seize Greenland, three NATO diplomats told POLITICO. At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, the alliance’s ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce its Arctic flank, according to the diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence. Envoys floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The flurry of ideas underscores a growing European concern around U.S. intentions on Greenland. This week, the White House ratcheted up its claims on Greenland, and repeatedly refused to rule out a military takeover.  Europe is scrambling to placate the latest Trump threats and avoid a military intervention that Denmark has said would mean the end of the alliance. A compromise with the U.S. president is seen as the first and preferred option. The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion onto Greenland would be on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Alongside its wealth of raw material and oil deposits, Trump has cited an alleged swarm of threatening Russian and Chinese ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory.  Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday, despite it not being on the formal agenda, two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals then expressed their solidarity for Denmark, they added. Denmark is expected to provide a formal briefing and update at a meeting of EU envoys on Friday, the same diplomats said. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — If European governments didn’t realize before that Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland were serious, they do now. Policymakers are no longer ignoring the U.S. president’s ramped-up rhetoric — and are desperately searching for a plan to stop him. “We must be ready for a direct confrontation with Trump,” said an EU diplomat briefed on ongoing discussions. “He is in an aggressive mode, and we need to be geared up.” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he planned to discuss a U.S. acquisition of Greenland with Danish officials next week. The White House said Trump’s preference would be to acquire the territory through a negotiation and also that it would consider purchasing the island — but that a military takeover was possible. As diplomatic efforts intensified in Europe, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he and his counterparts from Germany and Poland had discussed a joint European response to Trump’s threats. “What is at stake is the question of how Europe, the EU, can be strengthened to deter threats, attempts on its security and interests,” Barrot told reporters. “Greenland is not for sale, and it is not for taking … so the threats must stop.” POLITICO spoke with officials, diplomats, experts and NATO insiders to map out how Europe could deter the U.S. president from getting that far, and what its options are if he does. They were granted anonymity to speak freely. “Everyone is very stunned and unaware of what we actually have in the toolbox,” said a former Danish MP. “No one really knows what to do because the Americans can do whatever they want. But we need answers to these questions immediately. They can’t wait three or five or seven years.” On Wednesday, POLITICO set out the steps Trump could take to seize Greenland. Now here’s the flip side: What Europe does to stop him. OPTION 1: FIND A COMPROMISE Trump says Greenland is vital for U.S. security interests and accuses Denmark of not doing enough to protect it against increasing Chinese and Russian military activity in the Arctic.  A negotiated settlement that sees Trump come out of talks with something he can sell as a win and that allows Denmark and Greenland to save face is perhaps the fastest route out of trouble. A former senior NATO official suggested the alliance could mediate between Greenland, Denmark and the U.S., as it has done with alliance members Turkey and Greece over their disputes. U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. | Omar Havana/Getty Images U.S. NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker said on Wednesday that Trump and his advisers do not believe Greenland is properly secured. “As the ice thaws and as the routes in the Arctic and the High North open up … Greenland becomes a very serious security risk for the mainland of the United States of America.” NATO allies are also mulling fresh overtures to Trump that could bolster Greenland’s security, despite a widely held view that any direct threat from Russian and Chinese ships to the territory is overstated. Among other proposals, the alliance should consider accelerating defense spending on the Arctic, holding more military exercises in the region, and posting troops to secure Greenland and reassure the U.S. if necessary, according to three NATO diplomats.  The alliance should also be open to setting up an “Arctic Sentry” scheme — shifting its military assets to the region — similar to its Eastern Sentry and Baltic Sentry initiatives, two of the diplomats said. “Anything that can be done” to bolster the alliance’s presence near Greenland and meet Trump’s demands “should be maxed out,” said one of the NATO diplomats cited above. Trump also says he wants Greenland for its vast mineral deposits and potential oil and gas reserves. But there’s a reason Greenland has remained largely untapped: Extracting resources from its inhospitable terrain is difficult and very expensive, making them less competitive than Chinese imports. Denmark’s envoys say they tried for years to make the case for investment in Greenland, but their European counterparts weren’t receptive — though an EU diplomat familiar with the matter said there are signs that attitude is shifting. OPTION 2: GIVE GREENLAND A TON OF CASH The Trump administration has thrown its weight behind Greenland’s independence movement. The pitch is that if the Arctic territory leaves the Kingdom of Denmark and signs up to a deal with the U.S., it will be flooded with American cash.  While Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland, he has also insisted he wants it to come willingly. The EU and Denmark are trying to convince Greenlanders that they can give them a better deal. Brussels is planning to more than double its spending on Greenland from 2028 under long-term budget plans drawn up after Trump started to make claims on the Danish-held territory, according to a draft proposal from the European Commission published in September. Under the plans, which are subject to further negotiations among member countries, the EU would almost double spending on Greenland to €530 million for a seven-year period starting in 2028.  That comes on top of the money Denmark sends Greenland as part of its agreement with the self-governing territory. Greenland would also be eligible to apply for an additional €44 million in EU funding for remote territories associated with European countries, per the same document. Danish and European support currently focuses mainly on welfare, health care, education and the territory’s green transition. Under the new spending plans, that focus would expand to developing the island’s ability to extract mineral resources. “We have many, many people below the poverty line, and the infrastructure in Greenland is lagging, and our resources are primarily taken out without good profit to Greenland but mostly profit to Danish companies,” said Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP.  An attractive offer from Denmark and the EU could be enough to keep Greenlanders out of America’s grasp. OPTION 3: RETALIATE ECONOMICALLY Since Trump’s first term in office, “there’s been a lot of effort to try and think through how we ensure European security, Nordic security, Arctic security, without the U.S. actively involved,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “That’s hard, but it’s possible. But I don’t know if anyone has seriously contemplated ensuring European security against America. It’s just crazy,” Crosbie said. The EU does have one strong political tool at its disposal, which it could use to deter Trump: the Anti-Coercion Instrument, the “trade bazooka” created after the first Trump administration, which allows the EU to retaliate against trade discrimination. The EU threatened to deploy it after Trump slapped tariffs on the bloc but shelved it in July after the two sides reached a deal. With the U.S. still imposing tariffs on the EU, Brussels could bring the bazooka back out. “We have exports to the United States a bit above €600 billion, and for around one-third of those goods we have a market share of more than 50 percent and it’s totally clear that this is also the power in our hands,” said Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. But Trump would have to believe the EU was serious, given that all its tough talk amounted to nothing the last time around. OPTION 4: BOOTS ON THE GROUND If the U.S. does decide to take Greenland by military force, there’s little Europeans could do to prevent it.  “They are not going to preemptively attack Americans before they claim Greenland, because that would be done before an act of war,” said Crosbie, the Danish military educator. “But in terms of responding to the first move, it really depends. If the Americans have a very small group of people, you could try and arrest those people, because there’d be a criminal act.” It’s a different story if the U.S. goes in hard. Legally speaking, it’s possible Denmark would be forced to respond militarily. Under a 1952 standing order, troops should “immediately take up the fight without waiting for, or seeking orders” in “the event of an attack on Danish territory.” European countries should weigh the possibility of deploying troops to Greenland — if Denmark requests it — to increase the potential cost of U.S. military action, an EU diplomat said, echoing suggestions that Berlin and Paris could send forces to deter any incursion. While those forces are unlikely to be able to withstand a U.S. invasion, they would act as a deterrent. “You could have a tripwire effect where you have some groups of people who are physically in the way, like a Tiananmen Square-type situation, which would potentially force the [U.S.] military to use violence” or to back down, said Crosbie.  But that strategy comes at a high cost, he said. “This is completely unexplored territory, but it is quite possible that people’s lives will be lost in the attempt to reject the American claim over Greenland.” Gerardo Fortuna, Clea Caulcutt and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.