Donald Trump’s recent intervention in Venezuela and renewed musings about acquiring Greenland are not isolated blips of erratic behaviour. They are emblematic of a deliberate worldview in which power is exercised unilaterally, international rules are optional, and alliances exist only as long as they serve immediate interests. For Europe, these developments are a stark reminder that hesitation and ambiguity are not stabilising forces in today’s world; they are vulnerabilities waiting to be exploited. The question is no longer whether Europeans disapprove, but whether they are prepared to act decisively to protect the international order and their own credibility.
Trump’s Venezuela gambit, involving the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro, is a clear signal that sovereignty is conditional in his eyes and that coercion is a legitimate tool when it serves Washington’s goals. At the same time, his renewed interest in Greenland – potentially through military means – demonstrates a willingness to test European resolve directly. In this context, Europe faces three interrelated imperatives: opposing aggression that undermines international norms, strengthening resilience and security, and maintaining unity while leveraging strategic partnerships.
The first imperative is to oppose actions that weaken the international order. Trump’s approach normalises coercive regime change and asserts the legitimacy of spheres of influence, echoing the very arguments Russia has used to justify its aggression in Ukraine. If Europe fails to respond to these challenges, it undermines not only global norms but also the case for defending Ukraine itself. Silence is not neutrality; it is acquiescence, signalling that might makes right and encouraging further disruption. Europe’s muted response so far – driven in part by fear of jeopardising US support for Ukraine – is therefore strategically flawed. Appeasement does not restrain coercive powers; it emboldens them. Leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Frank-Walter Steinmeier have started to speak out, but words alone are insufficient. Concrete action and clear consequences are essential.
The second imperative concerns resilience and security. Europe cannot rely solely on future investments; it must reorient existing military, economic, and industrial capacities to deter aggression effectively. Resilience means the ability to absorb shocks without capitulation, whether through energy independence, robust supply chains, industrial capability, or credible defense structures. Support for Ukraine is central to this strategy, as the conflict represents a frontline test of whether sovereignty still matters in Europe’s neighborhood and beyond.
Failing to build resilience carries real risks. The logic underpinning Trump’s actions in Venezuela and Greenland could be applied elsewhere, such as Russia probing European resolve in Svalbard or other Arctic territories. Weakness invites experimentation. Moreover, Trump’s Greenland ambitions may form part of a broader strategy to divide Europe, exploit ideological rifts, and empower domestic political forces aligned with his nationalist agenda. Europe cannot allow opportunistic coercion to reshape its strategic environment.
The third imperative is unity. European cohesion is critical, but it cannot be an excuse for paralysis. Governments unwilling to act – whether Hungary or others – must face tangible consequences for blocking collective action. Solidarity is not unconditional; it requires reciprocal responsibility. At the same time, Europe must expand its circle of cooperation beyond the EU, coordinating with the UK, Norway, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Pragmatic alliances – sometimes crossing ideological lines – are essential to maintain minimum global guardrails in an increasingly fractured world. This is not about creating a bloc against the US but about preventing a slide toward a system where coercion replaces diplomacy.
Europe cannot prevent Trump from making aggressive or destabilising decisions, but it can influence the incentives. Greenland is the continent’s credibility litmus test: if the US attempts to seize it, Europe must impose costs that resonate domestically in the United States, targeting Trump’s political base and undermining the appeal of unilateral coercion. Trade, market access, regulatory cooperation, and industrial partnerships all provide levers for such deterrence. The key is to signal that aggression carries tangible consequences – not to provoke confrontation, but to prevent escalation.
Trump’s Venezuela gambit reflects a broader disorder in the global system. The era when Europe could rely on others to uphold international norms while remaining passive is over. Security cannot be bought through silence; credibility cannot be preserved through passivity. The world is harsher, more transactional, and less forgiving of weakness than previous generations might have hoped. European leaders face a stark choice: drift along, hoping volatility passes, or assume responsibility and act decisively.
In an age of transactional power politics, Europe’s response to Greenland and Venezuela will define its global standing. Hesitation and ambiguity are luxuries that can no longer be afforded. By strengthening resilience, asserting unity, and signalling that aggression carries costs, Europe can demonstrate that coercion is not without consequences and that sovereignty, both its own and that of its neighbors, still matters. Greenland is not just a territory; it is a test of Europe’s credibility, resolve, and capacity to shape a rules-based world.
Comments