According to Fortune, the diplomatic crisis was triggered in early January when President Donald Trump abruptly revived his demand for the U.S. to “absolutely” take over Greenland, the semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark. This led to sharp, unified rejections from European leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, with British PM Keir Starmer stating “Britain will not yield” and others declaring “Europe will not be blackmailed.” In response, Trump threatened a 10% import tariff on goods from eight European nations—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland—by mid-February, escalating to 25% by June 1 if no deal for Greenland was reached. However, by the end of the Davos meeting, Trump had canceled his threat to use “force” and announced a vague “framework” for a deal, which Danish PM Mette Frederiksen immediately rejected, stating “We cannot negotiate on our sovereignty.” This confrontation marks a dramatic turn from a year ago, when leaders like NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte were still using appeasing language, likening Trump’s role to a “daddy” intervening in a fight.
The Appeasement Phase Is Over
Here’s the thing: for the entire first year of Trump‘s second term, Europe tried the old playbook. They used measured diplomatic language, gave him credit for “modernizing” NATO, and offered royal treatment. The thinking was, if they played nice within the rules-based system, he’d eventually act like a traditional ally. But that strategy was fundamentally broken because Trump is, as the article notes, purely transactional. He doesn’t value diplomacy or international law; he sees relationships as deals to be won. The Greenland demand was so blatant, so outside any norm of alliance behavior, that it finally broke the European mindset. You can’t use traditional diplomacy with someone who views your sovereign territory as a piece of real estate to be acquired. The shift from Rutte calling him “daddy” to Frederiksen warning that an invasion would “mark the end of NATO” is just staggering. It’s the sound of an entire foreign policy establishment finally admitting their core assumptions were wrong.
The New Playbook: Say No, Together
So what did they learn? The first lesson was unity. For once, Europe didn’t fracture. From Britain to Norway to Denmark, the message was consistent and public: this is unacceptable. That collective “no” carries more weight than any single nation’s objection. The second lesson was to actually say the word “no.” Traditional diplomacy avoids it to preserve future options, but Greenland’s own Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, set the tone with a blunt statement: “Enough… No more fantasies about annexation.” When the country being threatened says it that clearly, it gives cover for everyone else to be equally direct. And the third, maybe most important lesson, was to reject Trump’s entire framing. As Canada’s Mark Carney did, they stopped debating the merits of selling Greenland and started talking about how to stand together against a “bully.” That reframes the conflict entirely, from a negotiation to a test of principle.
Why Now? Trump’s Domestic Weakness
But why did this work now, when appeasement failed before? The analysis points to Trump’s suddenly vulnerable domestic position. The stock market is sinking, his approval is wilting, and the November congressional elections are looming. He’s also facing a rebellion from the Federal Reserve and a Supreme Court decision on his tariffs. He’s spread thin. European leaders apparently sensed he couldn’t afford a full-blown trade war with all of Europe over a frozen island. His rapid climb-down in Davos—from threats of force to a murky “framework”—proves they were right. He blusters, but when met with solid, unified resistance, he looks for an off-ramp. That’s a crucial data point for every world leader dealing with him.
A Permanent Rupture or a Temporary Blip?
Now, the big question is whether this is a permanent shift or just a one-off. The article quotes an expert saying a “rupture” has occurred, but that it’s “too good a deal” for the U.S. and Europe not to repair ties eventually under new rules. I think that’s probably right in the long term, but the genie is out of the bottle. Europe has learned it can say no and survive. The trust is shattered. Future cooperation will be more hard-nosed, less based on shared values, and more on explicit, transactional terms. Basically, Trump wanted to treat allies like rivals, and now he might just get his wish. They’ll work together when it’s mutually beneficial, but the era of automatic Atlanticist solidarity is over. And honestly, that’s a lesson Europe probably needed to learn, even if the teacher was the most disruptive and dangerous one imaginable.
