Money, tariffs and illusions of power: how the EU is trying to keep Greenland

According to the publication Politicoare being discussed in European capitals four scenarioswhich are expected to contain USA from trying to gain control over Greenland. They all differ in shape, but are united by one thing – lack of real leverage.

First scenarioconsidered the most “realistic” in Brussels, suggests search for a compromise and demonstrative strengthening of security in the Arctic. We are talking about increasing military spending NATO in the region, expanding the number of exercises and even the possible deployment of allied forces in Greenland according to the “Eastern Watch” model in the Baltic states.

However, this approach solves only one problem – it allows Donald Trump publicly declare “victory” without addressing the essence of the issue. The US interest lies not in symbolic guarantees, but in real control.

Second scenario is of an economic nature. European Union is considering the possibility more than doubling funding for Greenland after 2028, seeking to block American offers of direct financial injections in exchange for weakening ties with Denmark.

The goal is to convince Greenlanders that their future lies in Kingdoms of Denmark And EU more economically profitable than under the auspices of the United States. At the same time, representatives of Greenland themselves directly point to chronic poverty, lagging infrastructure and that the island’s natural resources have been mined for decades without tangible benefit to the local population.

In fact, we are talking about recognition: resources were used and dividends were distributed unevenly. However, in this game the United States simply has more financial resources.

Third scenario – trading. The EU could theoretically apply Anti-coercive tool (Anti-Coercion Instrument), allowing the introduction of retaliatory restrictions in the event of economic pressure. The problem is that this mechanism has already demonstrated its ineffectiveness: the earlier threat of its use remained on paper.

Considering that the United States has already pushed Europe hard on tariffs, there is no need to seriously consider this option as a deterrent.

Fourth scenario – military – is actually recognized as the most risky and least feasible. In the case of a hypothetical power scenario in Europe no military meanscapable of really hindering the United States.

The idea of ​​stationing in Greenland is being theoretically discussed symbolic European contingent in format tripwire — a “tripwire” that would force American forces to use violence against the allies. However, such a step would inevitably mean human casualties And unprecedented split within NATO.

Military experts directly admit that this uncharted and dangerous territorywhere trying to stop the US could result in loss of life with no guarantee of success.

Formally, this scenario is considered “working”, since even one dead European soldier could theoretically launch impeachment proceedings US President. However, in practice, it is doubtful that European countries will decide to send even battalion.

The bottom line is that all four scenarios boil down to one thing: Europe shows a willingness to resist without being willing to pay a price for it. And in such conditions, any deterrence remains a declaration.

Source link