BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA
Words such as “intimidation,” “threats,” and “blackmail” are now being openly used by European Union leaders to describe warnings from U.S. President Donald Trump that he will impose new tariffs on countries opposing American control of Greenland, underscoring how sharply transatlantic relations have deteriorated a year into his return to the White House.
European rhetoric has hardened markedly over the past 12 months, reflecting growing alarm at what many leaders see as an unprecedented challenge from a longtime ally. The idea that the most powerful member of NATO would openly threaten economic punishment—and even suggest taking control of territory belonging to another alliance member—was once considered unthinkable in European capitals. Now, officials say trade retaliation appears increasingly likely if Trump follows through on his tariff threats.
For many European leaders, confidence in the strength and reliability of the transatlantic bond is fading rapidly. Some say it has already collapsed. Diplomatic flattery and cautious engagement have failed to moderate Washington’s stance, and European governments are now reassessing how to manage pressure from the United States at the same time they face an increasingly confrontational Russia to the east.
Trump’s first presidency rattled NATO and pushed the alliance to the brink. Former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg later wrote that he feared the alliance might stop functioning altogether after Trump threatened to walk out of a summit in 2018. Those anxieties have resurfaced with greater intensity during Trump’s second term, fueled by policy shifts that many Europeans interpret as a retreat from collective defense.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has issued one of the starkest warnings yet, saying that any attempt by Washington to annex Greenland, a semiautonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, would trigger a fundamental rupture. She cautioned that such a move would bring everything to a halt, including Denmark’s participation in NATO, signaling how existential the issue has become for Copenhagen.
Analysts say the crisis goes beyond trade or territorial disputes. Maria Martisiute, an analyst at the European Policy Centre, described the situation as the early phase of a deep political and military crisis. She said there is a growing realization—often unspoken by political leaders—that the United States has effectively stepped away from its traditional role as NATO’s guarantor.
The rupture has been building steadily since early 2025, when European allies were waiting for clarity on Trump’s plans for Ukraine. As Russia’s invasion entered its fourth year, European governments believed that a Russian victory would pose a direct and existential threat to their own security. While few expected a seamless continuation of previous U.S. policy, hopes that Washington would remain firmly committed to Kyiv were quickly dashed.
Within weeks, American military aid and financial support for Ukraine began to dry up. European officials were told they would need to shoulder more of the burden and, in some cases, pay directly for U.S. assistance. The message was delivered bluntly in February, when U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed allies at NATO headquarters, making clear that Washington’s priorities lay elsewhere and that Europe would need to take responsibility for its own security.
Hegseth said Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO and that territory seized by Russia would not be returned. He warned that while European countries could deploy forces to assist Ukraine if they wished, they should not expect U.S. support if those troops came under attack. Trump has since gone further, repeatedly blaming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the war and for the lack of progress toward a settlement.
The strain deepened days later at the Munich Security Conference, when Vice President JD Vance met with the leader of a far-right party during Germany’s election campaign and argued that Europe’s greatest threats were internal rather than external. He warned that free speech was in retreat across the continent, comments that were met with alarm and anger by European officials.
After winning the election, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz struck a markedly different tone, saying that Germany and Europe must move quickly and decisively to strengthen their defense capabilities in response to a rapidly worsening security environment.
Over the past year, European leaders and Zelenskyy made repeated trips to Washington in an effort to keep Trump engaged. A sweeping plan floated by Trump to end the war, which would have accepted many Russian demands, was heavily revised, and talks have continued without Russian President Vladimir Putin’s participation. Few European officials expect Moscow to accept any compromise, while Trump continues to fault Kyiv for the impasse.
As political tensions rose, Europe accelerated efforts to build greater security independence. The European Union created a multibillion-euro fund to purchase weapons and ammunition, prioritizing European manufacturers in an effort to reduce reliance on U.S. suppliers. Fiscal rules were loosened to allow higher defense spending, and additional funding was directed to Ukraine’s domestic arms industry.
In December, EU leaders agreed to cover most of Ukraine’s military and economic needs for the next two years, stepping in as Kyiv teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. At the same time, Trump’s global tariff campaign—including measures aimed at U.S. allies—added economic strain and further inflamed political tensions.
Relations deteriorated further after Washington released a new national security strategy portraying European allies as weak, offering tacit encouragement to far-right movements, and criticizing European approaches to free speech and migration. European Council President António Costa warned the United States against interfering in European domestic affairs, while Chancellor Merz said the document reinforced the urgency of reducing Europe’s dependence on Washington.
Work is now underway on a comprehensive European security strategy designed to respond to shifting geopolitical realities. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said the goal is to give a clear and autonomous European answer to a changing world, with greater emphasis on strategic independence.
That resolve was symbolically underscored last week when France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands sent small contingents of troops to Greenland. Though limited in number, the deployment carried a powerful message of unity and support for Danish sovereignty.
French President Emmanuel Macron said the move reflected the need to stand by a sovereign state and defend its territory. Speaking to senior military leaders, he acknowledged that Europe is being forced to question long-held assumptions.
“Europe is being shaken from some of its certainties,” Macron said. “We sometimes have allies we believed were predictable and always at our side, who now cause us to doubt—or even turn against those who least expected it.”
Original article
Comments