Europe regains its voice in the face of pressure from Trump that is beginning to backfire
- Afghanistan and a memory that remains open
- A weakened transatlantic architecture
- Towards more explicit strategic autonomy
- Internal calculations and global effects
- Greenland as a symptom of a deeper change
The priority was to avoid a rupture, even at the cost of enduring growing political discomfort. But the Greenland episode marked a turning point.
When Donald Trump began to openly pressure Denmark over US ambitions to acquire Greenland, European capitals left excessive caution behind. The tone changed. The message became more direct. The idea was clear: sovereignty is not subject to negotiation and alliances are not managed under a logic of imposition.
This shift is not the result of an isolated incident. It is the consequence of an accumulation of tensions, mistrust and political deterioration generated by a US presidency that has tended to conceive of alliances more as transactional relationships than as strategic partnerships.
Afghanistan and a memory that remains open
To understand the emotional dimension of European distancing, it is necessary to recall the precedent of Afghanistan.
After the attacks of 11 September, it was the European allies who activated Article 5 of the NATO for the first time, considering the attack on the United States as an attack on all.
Soldiers from Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Canada and other countries fought for years in Afghanistan. More than a thousand allied soldiers lost their lives. Thousands returned wounded. Governments fell. Societies were divided. The decision to side with Washington had a profound political cost within Europe.
Therefore, Trump's statements calling the allies ‘freeloaders,’ questioning the value of their contribution and reducing their sacrifice to a budgetary issue were perceived as more than just a political disagreement: they were understood as a moral breach.
A weakened transatlantic architecture
The problem is not limited to tone. It affects the very structure of the Atlantic system. Military alliances operate on the basis of credibility. When a US president publicly suggests that the commitment to Article 5 could be conditional, the immediate effect is the erosion of deterrence. NATO does not need to be defeated. It is enough for it to be perceived as uncertain. This message is not only received by Europe. It is also observed by Moscow, Beijing and numerous actors who are assessing the degree of Western cohesion.
Added to this is the recurrent use of economic instruments against European allies: tariffs under the argument of ‘national security’, trade threats, economic pressure linked to the Greenland case. The line between competition, coercion and alliance has become blurred.
Markets react to this uncertainty. Companies adjust their strategies. The perception takes hold: the United States is no longer a fully predictable partner, even for its closest allies.
Towards more explicit strategic autonomy
As a result, Europe has begun to move more decisively towards what it calls ‘strategic autonomy’. This is expressed in several lines of action:
- Reducing technological dependence on the United States
- Debate on the international role of the dollar
- Strengthening its own defence capabilities
- Rebalancing relations with China
- Reaffirming economic and political sovereignty
This is not necessarily an ideological distancing from Washington, but rather a pragmatic adaptation to a more volatile international environment.
Internal calculations and global effects
Part of Trump's rhetoric towards Europe responds to internal dynamics in the United States. Criticism of allies mobilises sectors of the electorate who perceive that their country is shouldering disproportionate burdens. It is a politically profitable narrative at home.
However, its effects transcend the domestic debate. Every weakening of the transatlantic relationship objectively benefits those actors who seek a fragmented West: Russia, China and other actors interested in a less cohesive international order. It is not a question of intention, but of outcome.
Greenland as a symptom of a deeper change
The controversy over Greenland was not an isolated crisis. It acted as a catalyst for a broader process. It revealed the exhaustion of European patience and marked a change in attitude: it is no longer just a question of managing the relationship with Washington, but of setting limits.
Europe is beginning to act not only as an ally, but as a strategic actor with a voice of its own.
A shift with historical implications
Great powers are rarely weakened by pressure from their adversaries. More often, they begin to lose influence when they erode the trust of their allies.
By straining its relationship with Europe, the United States is not forcing greater alignment. It is encouraging its historic partners to imagine a scenario in which US leadership is no longer the central axis. In the long term, this may be the real strategic change.
Greenland will probably not be remembered as a simple territorial dispute, but as a symbolic moment: the point at which Europe began to redefine its place in the world and the nature of its relationship with Washington.