• EU's lack of a unified stance hampers a strong response, pointing instead to NATO tools as option, analysts say
• 'Confrontation with US will not only weaken NATO unity but also very likely implicate EU,' Denis Cenusa tells Anadolu

BRUSSELS 

European analysts warn that although a US military takeover of Greenland would be relatively easy, any such move would carry significant political consequences, prompting calls for a stronger European presence, NATO exercises, and cooperative frameworks to safeguard sovereignty and transatlantic security.

US President Donald Trump's repeated vows that the US must acquire Greenland underscore the Arctic's rising strategic significance, as Russia expands its military footprint in the High North and China positions itself as a "near-Arctic" power.

Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark, sits in the Western Hemisphere and is viewed by Trump administration as critical to US national security.

European capitals have sharply rejected any idea of forced acquisition, asserting Greenland's sovereignty and Denmark’s authority over the territory.

"Militarily, it would be extremely easy for the world's strongest armed forces to take over Greenland," Ionela Ciolan, research officer on European foreign policy, security, and defense at the Brussels-based Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the official think tank of the European People's Party, told Anadolu.

"However, politically, it would have lethal repercussions for US security and NATO's credibility, causing the deepest rupture in US–EU relations."

NATO has a 'number of tools’ it can use

Ciolan stressed that Trump's approach to foreign policy is transactional and rooted in realpolitik, prioritizing power over principle, bilateral relations over multilateral cooperation, and pursuing a stated "America First" agenda, though one that could have unexpected consequences.

"Moscow and Beijing would be the biggest beneficiaries of a rupture in transatlantic relations and the potential end of NATO. So 'America First' could end up as 'America alone'," she said.

"The EU is now caught between a rock and a hard place," Ciolan said, noting that the bloc's foreign policy often reflects the lowest common denominator among its 27 member states, making it difficult to adopt a strong, unified stance.

Ciolan pointed to NATO’s possible role in Greenland’s defense, suggesting increased Arctic exercises, forward-deployed forces, or an “Arctic Sentry” operation. "As Greenland is NATO territory, there are a number of tools the alliance can activate," she added.

Such measures, she said, could demonstrate European commitment to Arctic security and reassure the Trump administration of transatlantic cooperation.

Ciolan said the future of US–EU relations largely pivot on the Trump administration’s actions regarding Greenland. "Depending on how the Trump administration acts towards Greenland, this issue could be the straw that broke the camel's back in US–EU relations," she warned.

Proposing cooperation on minerals is possible

Denis Cenusa, an associate expert at the Geopolitics and Security Studies Center, based in Vilnius, Lithuania, warned that the US' unpredictable foreign policy under Trump’s second term should not be "disregarded."

Cenusa said the new US National Security Strategy, released last November — including principles such as "enlist and expand" — signals a push to broaden Washington's network of allied states, which in practice may seek to extend US influence beyond Latin America into new strategic arenas such as Greenland.

The EU, he said, must articulate a clear stance against the repetition of Venezuelan‑style precedents in other regions, including in the Arctic, ensuring that international law applies equally across regions.

"The moment the EU admits a double standard in the application of international law, Trump will not hesitate to take advantage of the EU’s timidity to confront the US," Cenusa added.

Raphael Glucksmann, a French member of the European Parliament, proposed a permanent EU military base in Greenland to show firmness toward Trump and give reassurances of Europe’s role in the territory’s security.

"The French deployment of military force is unlikely to change Trump's mind ... A confrontation with the US will not only weaken NATO unity but also very likely implicate the EU, both scenarios previously hypothesized in the West and desired in Russia," he said.

He argued that the EU must realistically assess its capacities, recognizing it cannot simultaneously confront the US over Greenland while sustaining its role on Ukraine, and that diplomacy should be used to build new frameworks for cooperation.

"Proposing cooperation on minerals in Greenland could be an option to dissuade the US from any annexation attempts. Still, this framework should stem from Greenland’s and Denmark’s agency, not be denied out of fear," Cenusa said.

'Stronger European presence' needed

Giuseppe Spatafora, a research analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, the bloc’s foreign and security policy think tank, said Trump's recurring focus on Greenland now extends more than a year – including the interest also shown in his first term in 2017-2021 – suggesting that Washington's interest is "serious."

"However, so far there are no indications of military action ... Of course, any attempt to seize Greenland by force would have serious consequences for transatlantic cooperation," he said.

"Greenland is part of an EU member state and NATO ally. And there, the European presence should increase regardless," he urged, stressing the importance of a stronger European presence in the region, not only to deter potential Russian or Chinese influence but also to reinforce the principle that allied territories will be defended against all threats.

Spatafora acknowledged that Trump's rhetoric complicates transatlantic unity at a time when US–Europe relations are already under strain. "It does not make things easy for transatlantic unity, as the difference between the defense message (we are united against all threats) and the political rhetoric increases," he added.

'International law prohibits acquisition or annexation'

Antonios Tzanakopoulos, professor of public international law at Oxford University, said that any suggestion that territory might be taken over through the threat or use of force constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and customary international law.

"International law prohibits the acquisition or annexation of territory through the use of armed force," he said, adding that violations by states trigger state responsibility, which carries obligations to cease the unlawful conduct, offer assurances it will not be repeated, and make full reparation for any harm caused, including compensation.

"If states remain silent or do not react to violations of international law, this can have significant consequences," he said.

Such conduct risks being normatively accepted and could become part of customary international law over time, he warned, saying: "This is why it is particularly dangerous for states not to react to repeated violations of the law."

Europe has been criticized for what many view as a "weak" reaction to recent US actions in Venezuela, and with Trump making similar threats about Greenland, EU leaders have largely used cautious rhetoric, raising concerns among critics that such deference could encourage the US to push its plans without challenge.

"This can be very dangerous, as it may eventually lead to a situation where such interventions as the one in Venezuela will be considered lawful," Tzanakopoulos warned.