EU Seeks Deal to Defuse Trump’s Greenland Ambitions and Protect NATO

European governments are urgently searching for a compromise over Greenland that would allow U.S. President Donald Trump to present a political win at home, without triggering a crisis that could unravel NATO and the broader European security architecture. According to several diplomats and an EU official cited by POLITICO, the prevailing approach in European capitals is to de-escalate tensions and seek accommodation rather than confrontation, despite Trump’s repeated claims that the United States “needs” Greenland and his refusal to rule out the use of force.

Possible options under discussion range from strengthening NATO’s role in Arctic security to offering the United States economic incentives, including access to Greenland’s mineral resources. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the issue had been “encouraging,” while Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed hope that a “mutually acceptable solution” could be reached within NATO frameworks.

Diplomatic engagement is intensifying. Greenland’s and Denmark’s foreign ministers are expected to meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Rubio at the White House, with European officials describing the goal as an open and frank exchange with the U.S. administration.

Several diplomats believe a potential deal could be structured in a way that allows Trump to claim success domestically, for example by securing greater European investment in Arctic defense and guarantees that American companies would benefit from Greenland’s critical raw materials. One EU diplomat noted that repackaging Arctic security commitments together with mineral cooperation could be politically attractive to Trump, citing past experiences where U.S. pressure led European allies to increase defense spending.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has already hinted at discussions within the alliance on boosting Arctic security, potentially opening the door to higher European defense contributions in the region. While concrete proposals remain undefined, such steps could align with Washington’s long-standing demand that Europe take on more responsibility for its own defense.

Mineral extraction remains more complex. Greenland currently has limited capacity to exploit its critical resources, and Denmark has struggled for years to attract large-scale investment, as global markets offer cheaper alternatives. Nevertheless, the EU plans to significantly increase funding for Greenland in its next long-term budget, including support for raw materials projects. This expanded investment could form the basis of a joint EU-U.S. initiative.

Diplomats also point out that Denmark has previously invited U.S. investment in Greenland, offers that were declined. If Washington’s underlying concern is countering Chinese or Russian influence, European officials argue that the U.S. could simply request an expanded American military presence on the island.

Some in Europe believe Trump’s ambitions are driven less by economics or security and more by legacy. One diplomat suggested that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” vision has taken on a territorial dimension, with Greenland symbolizing a desire to leave a lasting mark on history.

Despite these discussions, European leaders are united in their determination to prevent any military confrontation. A U.S. intervention against Greenland, a territory linked to both the EU and NATO, would represent an unprecedented rupture in the post-war security order. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned that such a scenario would have no precedent in NATO’s history, while EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it would effectively mark the end of the alliance.

A NATO diplomat emphasized that the alliance’s founding treaty contains no provision for one member attacking another, underscoring how catastrophic such a development would be. Trump himself has suggested that preserving NATO and pursuing control over Greenland may be mutually exclusive choices.

Behind closed doors, European officials admit the situation has created deep anxiety. Several diplomats described the moment as historic and destabilizing, arguing that it signals Washington’s willingness to discard decades of established alliances.

Complicating matters further is the lack of contingency planning. Until recently, European governments avoided preparing for a U.S. move on Greenland, fearing that doing so might legitimize or even provoke such a scenario. Analysts now say that years of deliberate inaction have left Europe scrambling for options.

Officials acknowledge that traditional diplomatic tools may no longer be sufficient. While Europe knows how to respond to pressure from adversaries such as Russia, dealing with similar behavior from its closest ally is largely uncharted territory. Many see the Greenland dispute as the most serious strategic challenge the continent has faced since the Second World War, with no clear roadmap for how to resolve it.

Source: POLITICO