US President Donald Trump has taken a step back from his incendiary rhetoric about Greenland. After several days of ensuring that she would be his by hook or by crook, in the Davos forum (Switzerland) He toned down Wednesday and said he won’t attack the frozen island to keep it. Will he change his mind again and put military force on the table?
Spirits are heated, and that can be seen in what how quickly the alarms go off. At the beginning of the week, the US press reported that the Pentagon has ordered some 1,500 active duty soldiers to Alaska to prepare for a possible deployment in Minnesota, the scene of strong protests against the United States Government’s deportation campaign. But, on networks, there were other interpretations: What if it was actually a distraction maneuver And were those forces, specialized in fighting in frozen environments, actually heading to invade Greenland?
Eight European countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom) sent testimonial groups of soldiers to the Danish autonomous territory last week. Under the guise of some military maneuversin reality it was about sending a tacit message to Washington: the Europeans do not intend to make annexation easy for the American president.
PHOTODAY Nuuk (Greenland), 01/18/2026.- Danish soldiers disembark in the port of Nuuk, Greenland, this Sunday. The Danish Department of Defense will continue its increased military presence with military exercises together with several NATO allies in and around Greenland in 2026. / Mads Claus Rasmussen / EFE
The truth is that, in the event of an invasion by force, and with prior approval by the members of the European Council, the member countries should defend Denmark and, therefore, Greenland. This is how they signed it in the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union of 2007.
Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the EU mutual defense clause. It states: “If a Member State is subject to a armed aggression in its territory, the other Member States will owe it help and assistance with all available means, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Only countries traditionally considered neutral or not militarily aligned in the I’LL TAKEsuch as Austria, Ireland and Malta.
“Article 42.7, the mutual defense clause, unlike Article 5 of NATO, requires a commitment on the part of the member states of the European Union to provide aid to the state that has been attacked,” he explains to EL PERIÓDICO Pol Morillasdirector of the CIDOB think tank. “It specifies that they will do so with the means available to them. It has a logic of obligation, but it is also true that the capabilities of the Member States are disparate and may not be opportune to help the attacked country.”
Unanimity in the European Council
Everything would require a prior decision of the European Councilthe conclave in which the 27 European heads of State and Government meet. There could be a veto, for example from Hungary, but in the event of armed aggression it would be difficult for Budapest to refuse to activate the point of the Treaty, and it would receive pressure.
“Like any security and defense matter, within the framework of the European Union, is adopted unanimously. And that means that after invoking it a State, in this case it would have to be Denmark, the European Council or the Council of the Union would have to give the go-ahead.”
Treaty of the European Union, TITLE V- Chapter 2: Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy
Section 2 : Provisions on the common security and defense policy
Article 42:
1. The common security and defense policy forms an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It will offer the Union an operational capability based on civil and military means. The Union may resort to such means in missions outside the Union that aim to guarantee the maintenance of peace, the prevention of conflicts and the strengthening of international security, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The execution of these tasks will rely on the capabilities provided by the Member States.
[…]
The policy of the Union under this section will not affect to the specific nature of the security and defense policy of certain Member States, will respect the obligations derived from the North Atlantic Treaty for certain Member States that consider that their common defense is carried out within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and will be compatible with the common security and defense policy established within said framework.
3. Member States will make available to the Unionfor the purposes of the application of the common security and defense policy, civil and military capabilitiess to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Member States that establish multinational forces among themselves may also make them available for the common security and defense policy.
[…]
7. If a Member State is subject to armed aggression in its territorythe other Member States They will owe you help and assistance with all the means at their disposal.in accordance with the article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. This is without prejudice to the specific nature of the security and defense policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area will continue adjusting to the commitments acquired within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizationwhich will continue to be, for the Member States that are part of it, the foundation of their collective defense and the body for its execution.
The ‘bazooka’ of the European Union
This would be, in any case, a almost apocalyptic scenario for the European Unionbecause it would mean that the main military power in the world attacks an area that, although it has some of the best armies on the planet (especially France, but also Germany, Italy or Spain) and nuclear bombs, is clearly inferior in military capabilities.
So the most likely options for an escalation are purely economic in nature. Trump threatened to impose more tariffs on European countries who decided to send support troops to Greenland, although they finally backed down from announcing a supposed pre-agreement on the strategic Arctic island after a conversation with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte.
In response to the threat, the EU called for a Thursday Emergency European Council in Brussels to decide the answer, a quote that was maintained despite the Republican’s rectification. After the meeting, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyenwarned of future pressure from the Republican: “We are well prepared with trade countermeasures and non-tariff instruments if tariffs had been applied.” The German was referring to the so-called “bazooka” or anti-coercion mechanism, which includes a series of sanctions ranging from raising tariffs to limiting investments by the country that exercises coercion, among others.
“At the moment what there is is a desire to mark territorybecause the offensive against Greenland and Denmark is a matter of high political tension in the EU,” says Pol Morillas. “There has been talk of the anti-coercion mechanism, there has been talk of putting the trade agreement on hold. “It is in the field of trade and investment where the European Union has the most capacity to react.”
The countries most reluctant to this mechanism, at the moment, are Germany, Poland and Italy. Hungary and Slovakia, aligned with Trump, would predictably oppose it. But unanimity is not required, but rather a double majority of States and population.
Subscribe to continue reading
