The potential for a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is elevating many unprecedented questions — together with how Canada, the European Union and NATO may reply and even retaliate in opposition to an ostensible ally.
A high-level assembly between Greenlandic, Danish and U.S. officers this week didn’t resolve the “basic disagreement” over the territory’s sovereignty however did set the stage for extra talks. The White Home made clear Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s need to manage Greenland has not modified after the assembly.
“He desires the USA to amass Greenland. He thinks it’s in our greatest nationwide safety to do this,” White Home press secretary Karoline Leavitt mentioned.
Denmark and European allies are sending extra troops to the territory in a present of pressure and to show a dedication to Arctic safety.
Specialists say there are different, non-military measures obtainable within the occasion of a U.S. annexation or invasion of Greenland, or which may a minimum of be threatened to try to get Trump to again down.
Whether or not these financial measures are literally used is one other matter, these specialists say.
“I believe it stays extremely unlikely that we’ll get to that time the place we’ve to significantly talk about penalties for a U.S. transfer on Greenland,” mentioned Otto Svendsen, an affiliate fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program on the Heart for Strategic and Worldwide Research.
“So it stays contingency planning for a extremely unlikely occasion. That being mentioned … Denmark would definitely do all the pieces in its energy to rally a really strong European response.”
Right here’s what that would entail.
EU commerce, tech disruptions?
Specialists agree the largest stress factors that can be utilized within the U.S. encompass commerce and expertise.
The European Parliament’s commerce committee is at the moment debating whether or not to postpone implementing the commerce deal signed between Trump and the EU final summer time to protest the threats in opposition to Greenland, Reuters reported Wednesday.
Many lawmakers have complained that the deal is lopsided, with the EU required to chop most import duties whereas the U.S. sticks to a broad 15 per cent tariff for European items.
Get breaking Nationwide information
For information impacting Canada and world wide, join breaking information alerts delivered on to you after they occur.
An excellent bolder transfer could be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — generally known as the “commerce bazooka” — that will enable the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, commerce restrictions, overseas funding bans, and different penalties if that nation is discovered to be utilizing coercive financial measures.
Though the regulation defines coercion as “measures affecting commerce and funding,” Svendsen mentioned it may feasibly be utilized in a diplomatic or territorial dispute as nicely.
“EU legal professionals have confirmed themselves to be very inventive in recent times,” he mentioned.
Nonetheless, David Perry, president of the Canadian World Affairs Institute, mentioned in an e mail that financial measures in opposition to the U.S. are unlikely “given the huge asymmetry within the defence and financial relationship between the U.S.” and different western nations.
“Any sort of sanction in opposition to the U.S. doesn’t make sense for a similar cause they will impose tariffs on others: they’ve the ability,” Perry added.
Goal U.S. tech corporations?
The likeliest — and probably least dangerous — situation for retaliation within the occasion of an assault on Greenland, Svendsen mentioned, could be fines or bans in opposition to U.S. tech corporations like Google, Meta and X working in Europe.
That’s as a result of the Trump administration has taken explicit deal with stopping what they name “assaults” on American corporations by overseas governments looking for to manage their on-line content material or tax their revenues, which has led to calls on Canada, Britain and the EU to repeal legal guidelines like digital providers taxes.
“I believe that will be a very good and focused method to get to financial pursuits very near the president, whereas minimizing the direct impression on the on the European economic system,” Svendsen mentioned, calling such a transfer “low-hanging fruit.”
He additionally in contrast a future U.S. tech platform ban to how Europe moved to wean itself off Russian gasoline after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“When you instructed anybody again then that Europe would mainly rid itself of its dependence on Russian gasoline mainly inside a two-year interval … that will have been thought of utterly inconceivable,” he mentioned.
“Weaning the European economic system off of U.S. tech would definitely be painful within the quick time period, however they’ve confirmed that they will get off these dependencies rapidly if there may be political will behind it up to now.”
A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would imply the “finish” of the NATO alliance, specialists and European leaders have mentioned.
Trump himself has acknowledged it may very well be a “selection” between preserving the alliance or buying Greenland.
There isn’t a provision inside the NATO founding treaty that addresses the potential of a NATO member taking territory from one other, and the way the alliance ought to reply to such an act.
A NATO spokesperson instructed World Information it wouldn’t “speculate on hypothetical eventualities” when requested the way it may probably act.
“None of this is able to be actionable in a NATO sense,” Perry mentioned. “It’s an alliance that’s organized to bind the U.S. to European safety, and revolves across the U.S. So there’s no situation of NATO doing that to the U.S.”
Denmark and different European nations may transfer to cut back or shut U.S. army bases of their nations as a doable response, specialists say.
Balkan Devlen, a a senior fellow on the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and director of its Transatlantic Program, mentioned in an interview {that a} U.S. annexation of Greenland would pressure Canada to focus fully on boosting its defences within the Arctic.
Which will embrace making an attempt to decouple from NORAD, the joint northern defence community with the U.S., in favour of a purely home Arctic command, he mentioned — though that course of would take years and require Canada to extend defence spending even additional.
“By no means thoughts 5 per cent (of GDP) — we are going to in all probability must go like seven, eight, 9 per cent on defence spending to have the ability to do something of that kind,” he mentioned. “It’s not even clear that we’ll have the ability to have sufficient individuals to do this.”
Devlen added that any retaliatory motion, whether or not army or monetary, must be focused and proportionate to what the U.S. does.
“The issue with nuclear choices is that when you employ it, it’s gone,” he mentioned. “And if it doesn’t do the harm or make the change of behaviour on the opposite celebration, you’ve mainly misplaced a number of leverage and also you would possibly really maintain much more loss your self.”
