By Matt Underwood European allies working on a plan should the US move on Greenland is becoming a chillingly realistic scenario, prompting a flurry of discussion and, hopefully, concrete action. The very idea of the United States considering a military move against a fellow NATO member, even if it’s Greenland (under Danish sovereignty), is a sign of a world order teetering on the edge. The gravity of such a potential act is driving European nations to seriously consider how they would respond.
One of the first concerns that pops into mind is the potential impact on US military bases across Europe. If the US were to take military action against Greenland, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that some European nations would be forced to reconsider the presence of US military bases within their borders. Germany, in particular, has been mentioned in connection with potentially shutting down Ramstein Air Base, a vital strategic asset for the US.
The skepticism surrounding the “truth” coming from the current US administration is a common thread in the discussion. The fact that vessel tracking data doesn’t seem to corroborate claims about Russian or Chinese ships near Greenland only fuels the mistrust. The belief is that this administration is willing to say and do whatever it wants, regardless of facts. This highlights a fundamental problem: a lack of trust.
The role of the Republican Party and the Supreme Court in potentially curbing this kind of behavior is also raised. The enablement that the current administration seems to be receiving from a significant portion of the US establishment is truly disheartening. And a seemingly sizable part of the population is right behind him. It’s an indictment of the system itself when the very forces that should provide checks and balances appear to be enabling the most erratic behavior.
This all raises the question of what happens when the military is asked to carry out what could be considered illegal orders. The potential for a refusal to comply is another factor. The situation is so outlandish that Russia seems to be relishing the idea of NATO strategizing against NATO. This is where European leadership is seen as crucial. They must step up. And the focus must be on economic pressure.
The potential for economic retaliation is a key theme. Suggestions range from halting US aircraft landings to ceasing purchases of US debt. Some even suggest that Europe should start dumping its US treasuries. The immediate consequences in the bond market alone could force the US to back down. The financial world is interconnected and such a move would send ripples across the global economy.
The suggestion that the EU should collaborate with non-US Anglosphere countries, perhaps even Japan, on a “Financial MAD” strategy, is an interesting one. It’s essentially about creating a mutually assured destruction scenario, but in the financial realm. By building a network of coordinated financial responses, any aggressive action by the US could trigger a devastating economic backlash. This goes hand in hand with economic warfare tactics, like ceasing purchases of US Treasuries and stocks and increasing taxes on US assets held by European citizens.
The importance of acting quickly and decisively is clear. A plan needs to be in place. There’s a clear understanding that the current administration telegraphs its moves, using repetition to desensitize the public to its ideas. Greenland is a clear precursor to bringing him to heel. If the US does make a move, a set of automated triggers could go into effect: immediately restructuring exposure to US debt, freezing treasury holdings, and blocking SWIFT access to institutions.
There’s a very real concern about the impact on transatlantic partnerships. The damage to alliances, built up over generations, is truly alarming. The idea of the US becoming isolated, with its allies seeing it as unreliable and dangerous, is a terrifying prospect.
The suggestions also include: reaching lucrative economic deals with China, India, and Brazil; inviting Canada into the EU; and steering clear of the dominance of companies like Microsoft. In addition, the suggestions talk about increasing investment in AI to develop competitors to the current tech giants. The need to look East is also raised with the question of whether China might be a worse economic partner than the US.