Greenland’s defense should not be American

Kurt W. Bassuener, Senior Associate at the Democratization Policy Council, writes:

No shortage of ink has flowed commenting on the United States assault on Venezuela and abduction of its authoritarian leader, Nicolas Maduro. Likewise, what the Trump administration truly intends–toward that country and beyond–has generated much speculation.

Congruence with Russia and China

While the permutations of their application are manifold, the essential ingredients and underlying mindset are clear. The key word, used in the Saturday press conference, was “dominance.” This theme was amplified in a bizarre interview with White House official Steven Miller on CNN Monday evening. The likely next target is Greenland.

“Dominance” is perfectly congruent with Vladimir Putin’s disposition toward neighbors and the European continent as a whole. Russia wants to restore the pre-1997 European security order (e.g., prior to NATO enlargement). Dominance also works for Xi Jinping’s China, which has – generally less shrilly, but operationally – pursued it in East Asia. This parallelism is not coincidental, especially as regards Putin. Former US National Security Council official Fiona Hill testified in 2019 that Russia had essentially proposed US retreat from supporting Ukraine in exchange for Russia rescinding its material and political support for Maduro.

European divergence

The EU as a collective is MIA on Venezuela. The Union and its wider circle of democratic allies (“Europe Plus”) have displayed divergent reactions. They show no evident strategic appreciation of the catastrophic portent for their own existential and systemic interests. To apply Macron’s diagnosis of NATO from 2019, the EU appears “brain dead.”

Several member states as well as the UK have radiated abject timidity, occasionally displayed as outright servility, toward American actions. This befits satellites or subjects rather than allies.

Latvia argued at the UNSC for the US position. Riga fears the Russian bear will eat them (again). Latvians hope, against all evidence, that NATO’s Article 5 is still real even with Trump at the helm, so long as they don’t provoke him.

For Denmark, the most articulate and proximate threat is to Greenland. So it is vigorous in opposing the US.

The UK remains wedded to hope that the special relationship with the US can be preserved. So London delivered a milquetoast response at the UNSC devoid of criticism of the American action. This contrasted sharply with the 1983 US invasion of Grenada, which memorably infuriated Margaret Thatcher.

Greece wants international law respected and for Venezuelan democracy but avoided mention of US military action.

France articulated the most laudably consistent position, stating that the attack “chips away at the very foundation of international order.”

A fictive word from Watership Down about a rabbit society escaping annihilation comes to mind: “tharn.” It describes the paralytic fear rabbits feel when a predator appears. They freeze and take no defensive action. That effectively allows the predator to kill them. The EU and Europe Plus (Canada, the UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand) appear collectively to have gone tharn in the face of an unapologetically predatory US.

The hope of Europe Plus 

While the European Union and Europe Plus cannot match American firepower anytime soon, they are far from without leverage. Europe* has a GDP the size of China’s. It has standards-setting powers which Trump and his techbro allies genuinely fear.

Europe Plus is the center of gravity of the remaining democratic world. Yet its wider foreign policy disposition has been instrumental and sectoral. It has never had to be a survival-oriented collective, with a philosophy and strategy.

That is what is required now. It needs to animate EU and allied foreign and security policy going forward, including outreach to fellow democracies in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, and East Asia. Now is long past time for leaders to assemble a strategy to defend their democracies. Washington has not only ceased to be an ally, but is now an enemy intent on fulfilling Trump’s inaugural promise of expanding US territory.

The US is today allied with Russia, notwithstanding the drama of tanker seizure on the high seas. Moscow will chalk that up to the cost of doing business. The US is also prepared to benefit China. Europe Plus leaders can undertake measures immediately amongst themselves to develop not only an appropriate response, but a forward-looking strategy to press on the EU and its member states. Some of them are serving as effective “cuckoos” of Washington and Moscow’s agendas. Having untrustworthy allies in the tent can no longer be finessed. Mechanisms to prevent them and others from spiking necessary collective defense, writ large, need to be developed, and soon.

Action speaks louder than words

Europe Plus needs a policy of resolve. A first demonstration of such a policy would be a preventive deployment of European and allied forces to Greenland. Thus far, no additional US forces have been marshalled for action. Fellow Nordic states and Canada are best equipped and positioned to lead such a deployment, but – as in the Cold War – inclusion of specialized capabilities from throughout non-US NATO and EU member states is essential to demonstrating solidarity. The participants need not market this as aggressive. They should justify it as a demonstration of Allied will to defend Greenland. But the message would be clear.

Now is not the time for Europe Plus to “go wobbly” in the face of a longtime friend turned unapologetic adversary. What is missing is vision and leadership to assemble its collective assets into a genuine strategic outlook – and develop the popular support for it throughout the EU and what must become a new global democratic alliance.

*This originally said “Canada.” That was incorrect.