The prospect of the United States purchasing Greenland, a notion initially raised by President Donald Trump a year ago, appears to have been averted. The situation, which escalated in recent weeks with threats of tariffs against Europe and even the potential fracturing of NATO, concluded with an announcement from Trump following discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte reportedly reached a framework for a deal – one that does not include U.S. ownership of the island.
A Shift in Tactics
The announcement is widely viewed as a retreat for the President. The question then becomes: what prompted this change? According to reports, a more assertive stance from European leaders played a key role. Henry Farrell, a professor of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University, argued in a recent New York Times op-ed that Europe had been too hesitant in responding to Trump’s threats and needed to demonstrate a more forceful posture, rooted in what he termed “deterrence theory.”
Farrell explained to Today, Explained co-host Noel King that the concept of deterrence evolved after the Cuban Missile Crisis, a period when the United States and the USSR came dangerously close to nuclear war. The development of ideas from figures like Thomas Schelling, a Nobel laureate in economics, focused on how to deter attacks without necessarily resorting to military action.
Deterrence in Action
Schelling’s work, as Farrell described, highlighted the idea of creating a situation where the potential cost of aggression outweighed the benefits. He used the example of U.S. troops stationed in West Berlin, whose presence, and potential loss, carried the risk of escalation – even nuclear war – and thus deterred the Soviet Union from attacking.
In the recent Greenland situation, eight European countries demonstrated a similar principle by conducting brief military exercises on the island. This action, Farrell explained, signaled to Trump that any attempt to invade Greenland would be met with resistance from multiple NATO allies.
This display of unity appeared to shift the dynamic, leading Trump to move from threats of invasion to economic measures – specifically, tariffs against the eight European nations. Europe then invoked its “anti-coercion instrument,” a legal mechanism allowing it to retaliate against economic pressure, though it did not ultimately need to be deployed.
A Retreat Framed as Victory
Reports suggest a change in tone from Trump administration officials during the Davos forum. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent initially dismissed the possibility of an effective European response, but later urged Europe not to escalate. This shift, according to Farrell, indicates that the administration recognized the credibility of the European coalition and the potential risks of further confrontation.
The final agreement, brokered through NATO Secretary General Rutte, is likely to focus on security cooperation in the Arctic region, an area of shared interest. Trump is expected to present this outcome as a victory, despite the fact that it does not include U.S. ownership of Greenland.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the initial U.S. interest in Greenland?
President Donald Trump initially broached the idea of the United States purchasing Greenland approximately a year ago, and in recent weeks, escalated rhetoric to include threats of tariffs and potential military action if the U.S. did not acquire the island.
How did Europe respond to Trump’s threats?
Eight European countries sent a small military force to Greenland for a brief period of exercises, establishing what experts call a “trip wire” to signal their willingness to defend the island alongside Denmark and potentially against the United States.
What is the “anti-coercion instrument” and how does it relate to this situation?
The “anti-coercion instrument” is a legal mechanism created by the European Union that allows it to retaliate against economic coercion from other nations, potentially through measures like blocking investments or imposing trade restrictions.
Given the complex interplay of geopolitical factors and the demonstrated willingness of European nations to defend their interests, what role will international alliances play in shaping future negotiations and responses to assertive foreign policy?
