Mark Leonard is the director and co-founder of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and author of “Surviving Chaos: Geopolitics when the Rules Fail” (Polity Press April 2026). The international liberal order is ending. In fact, it may already be dead. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said as much last week as he gloated over the U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro: “We live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power … These are the iron laws of the world.” But America’s 47th president is equally responsible for another death — that of the united West. And while Europe’s leaders have fallen over themselves to sugarcoat U.S. President Donald Trump’s illegal military operation in Venezuela and ignore his brazen demands on Greenland, Europeans themselves have already realized Washington is more foe than friend. This is one of the key findings of a poll conducted in November 2025 by my colleagues at the European Council on Foreign Relations and Oxford University’s Europe in a Changing World research project, based on interviews with 26,000 individuals in 21 countries. Only one in six respondents considered the U.S. to be an ally, while a sobering one in five viewed it as a rival or adversary. In Germany, France and Spain that number approaches 30 percent, and in Switzerland — which Trump singled out for higher tariffs — it’s as high as 39 percent. This decline in support for the U.S. has been precipitous across the continent. But as power shifts around the globe, perceptions of Europe have also started to change. With Trump pursuing an America First foreign policy, which often leaves Europe out in the cold, other countries are now viewing the EU as a sovereign geopolitical actor in its own right. This shift has been most dramatic in Russia, where voters have grown less hostile toward the U.S. Two years ago, 64 percent of Russians viewed the U.S. as an adversary, whereas today that number sits at 37 percent. Instead, they have turned their ire toward Europe, which 72 percent now consider either an advisory or a rival — up from 69 percent a year ago. Meanwhile, Washington’s policy shift toward Russia has also meant a shift in its Ukraine policy. And as a result, Ukrainians, who once saw the U.S. as their greatest ally, are now looking to Europe for protection. They’re distinguishing between U.S. and European policy, and nearly two-thirds expect their country’s relations with the EU to get stronger, while only one-third say the same about the U.S. Even beyond Europe, however, the single biggest long-term impact of Trump’s first year in office is how he has driven people away from the U.S. and closer to China, with Beijing’s influence expected to grow across the board. From South Africa and Brazil to Turkey, majorities expect their country’s relationship with China to deepen over the next five years. And in these countries, more respondents see Beijing as an ally than Washington. More specifically, in South Africa and India — two countries that have found themselves in Trump’s crosshairs recently — the change from a year ago is remarkable. At the end of 2024, a whopping 84 percent of Indians considered Trump’s victory to be a good thing for their country; now only 53 percent do. Of course, this poll was conducted before Trump’s intervention in Venezuela and before his remarks about taking over Greenland. But with even the closest of allies now worried about falling victim to a predatory U.S., these trends — of countries pulling away from the U.S. and toward China, and a Europe isolated from its transatlantic partner — are likely to accelerate. Meanwhile, Washington’s policy shift toward Russia has also meant a shift in its Ukraine policy. And as a result, Ukrainians, who once saw the U.S. as their greatest ally, are now looking to Europe for protection. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images All the while, confronted with Trumpian aggression but constrained by their own lack of agency, European leaders are stuck dealing with an Atlantic-sized chasm between their private reactions and what they allow themselves to say in public. The good news from our poll is that despite the reticence of their leaders, Europeans are both aware of the state of the world and in favor of a lot of what needs to be done to improve the continent’s position. As we have seen, they harbor no illusions about the U.S. under Trump. They realize they’re living in an increasingly dangerous, multipolar world. And majorities support boosting defense spending, reintroducing mandatory conscription, and even entertaining the prospect of a European nuclear deterrent. The rules-based order is giving way to a world of spheres of influence, where might makes right and the West is split from within. In such a world, you are either a pole with your own sphere of influence or a bystander in someone else’s. European leaders should heed their voters and ensure the continent belongs in the first category — not the second.

Faced with a barrage of American threats to grab Greenland, Denmark’s foreign minister and his Greenlandic counterpart flew to Washington for — they hoped — sympathetic talks with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. But their plan for a soothing diplomatic chat escalated into a tense White House head-to-head with the EU’s nemesis, JD Vance. Over the past year the U.S. vice president has earned a reputation for animosity toward the old continent, and many governments in Europe fear his hardline influence over President Donald Trump when it comes to seizing territory from a longstanding ally. Among the 10 ministers and officials who spoke anonymously to POLITICO for this article, none regarded Vance as an ally — either in the Greenland talks or for the transatlantic relationship in general.  “Vance hates us,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to give a candid view, like others quoted in this article. The announcement that the vice president would be helming the Washington talks on Greenland alarmed the European side. “He’s the tough guy,” the same diplomat said. “The fact that he’s there says a lot and I think it’s negative for the outcome.”  Trump says he wants “ownership” of Greenland for reasons of U.S. national security and will get it either by negotiation or, if necessary, perhaps through military means. At stake is much more than simply the fate of an island of 57,000 inhabitants, or even the future of the Arctic.  The bellicose rhetoric from the White House has dismayed America’s NATO allies and provoked warnings from Denmark that such a move would destroy the post-war Western alliance. Others say it is already terminal for the international order on which transatlantic relations rely.  In the event, the talks in Washington on Wednesday went as well as could be expected, officials said after: The Americans were blunt, but there was no declaration of war. Nor did the occasion descend into a public humiliation of the sort Vance unleashed against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a White House visit last year. The two sides clearly argued their cases with some force but resolved to keep talking. A high-level working group will explore whether any compromise can be reached between the Danes and Greenlanders, and Trump.  ‘FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT’ The discussion “wasn’t so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, ‘Sorry, it was totally a misunderstanding, we gave up on our ambitions,’” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen quipped to reporters after what he described as a “frank” exchange with Vance and Rubio. “There’s clearly a disagreement.”  “The president has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” Rasmussen added. “For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, or the right of self determination of the Greenlandic people, are of course totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. And we agree to disagree.” Talks in future must, he said, respect the “red lines” set by Greenland and Denmark. It is hoped that the working group will help lower “the temperature” on the issue when it begins its work in the coming weeks, Rasmussen added.  While Donald Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, JD Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. | Aaron Schwartz/EPA The small win, for the Danes, is that the question of Greenland has — for now — moved from wild social media images of the island dressed in the American flag to a proper diplomatic channel, giving everyone time to calm down.  If it holds, that would be something. A stream of X posts from Trump’s allies — alongside uncompromising statements from the president himself — have left European officials aghast. In one that the White House posted this week, Trump can be seen peering out of his Oval Office window at a scene depicting the icy map of Greenland.  Behind him, looking on, is Vance. “It was terrible,” the first diplomat cited above told POLITICO.  NO FRIEND Few Europeans will forget Vance’s attacks on Zelenskyy in last February’s Oval Office showdown. Vance also left Europeans shocked and horrified when he savaged them for refusing to work with the far right, and complained bitterly how much he resented America paying for European security.  By contrast, Rubio is often described as “solid” by European officials, and is generally seen as someone who is more aligned with the priorities of the European mainstream especially on security and the war in Ukraine.  At the time of writing, Vance had not given his account in public of Wednesday’s talks on Greenland. In response to a request for comment, Vance’s deputy press secretary pointed to previous remarks in which the vice president had said “I love Europe” and European people — but also said European leaders had been “asleep at the wheel” and that the Trump administration was frustrated that they had failed to address issues including migration and investment in defense. One EU official, speaking after the meeting, suggested it was actually a good thing Vance was involved because he “calls the shots” and holds sway with Trump.  Elsewhere, however, the skepticism remains deep — and turns to alarm at the prospect that when Trump’s second term ends, it could be Vance who takes over in the White House.  While Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. That would be a risk not just for Greenland but also for NATO and Ukraine. Some EU diplomats see Trump’s territorial ambitions as part of a pattern that includes Vance’s attacks and the new White House national security strategy, which sets out to redirect European democracy toward the ends of Trump’s MAGA movement. When it comes to the dispute over Greenland, many in Brussels and European capitals are pessimistic. Even Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, didn’t pretend a deal was in sight and confessed one may never come. “Trump doesn’t want to invest in something he doesn’t own,” one EU diplomat said. The U.S. has wide access to Greenland for military deployments under existing agreements, and could easily invest in further economic development, according to the Danes and their allies.  “It’s not clear what there is to negotiate because the Americans can already have whatever they want,” another diplomat said. “The only thing that Denmark cannot give is to say Greenland can become American.”  It may not be a question of what Greenland can give, if in the end the president and his eager deputy decide simply to take it.  Victor Goury-Laffont and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s leading trade lawmakers on Wednesday postponed a decision on whether to freeze a U.S. trade deal over Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland.  MEPs are due to hold a vote on Jan. 26, laying out the European Parliament’s position on lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods — one of the key planks of a deal struck between Brussels and Washington last summer. But some MEPs, angry at Trump’s behavior, don’t want the vote to go ahead, thereby freezing the decision on lifting the tariffs.  But at a meeting of lawmakers leading on the topic, they decided to delay taking a decision on whether to postpone or go ahead with the vote, awaiting the outcome of high-stakes meetings between Washington, Nuuk and Copenhagen taking place later Wednesday. “We are not in a position to move the agreement to a vote today,” lead trade lawmaker Karin Karlsbro, of the liberal Renew Europe, told POLITICO, adding that clarity from the U.S. on Greenland was essential.  Discussions will continue next Wednesday, the chair of the international trade committee, Bernd Lange, told POLITICO as he left the room. Political groups are divided over what to do in response to Trump’s threats to annex European territory. The Socialists and Democrats, of which Lange is a member, are leaning toward freezing the vote on the trade agreement. “One camp is more like, OK, let’s cooperate with the U.S. in order to get the maximum out, and there’s the other camp that says, OK we also need to show teeth and not give in on everything,” explained Green lawmaker Anna Cavazzini, who is also the chair of the internal market committee.  Cavazzini, who is in favor of freezing the deal, added that lawmakers agreed to delay the decision to “observe the global situation,” adding that the groups also need to agree on specific clauses in the final Parliament text.  The U.S. deal “will not be postponed,” assured EPP lawmaker Željana Zovko, telling POLITICO on Wednesday that any delay would hurt businesses as it would bring instability to transatlantic relations, while only Russia and China would benefit from it.  Under the deal struck in July, the EU committed itself to legislation lifting tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and lobsters, in exchange for Washington reducing tariffs on European cars. The deal is seen as lopsided in favor of Washington across party lines, but lawmakers were willing to put up with it in exchange for having Trump commit to protecting European security. As Greenland annexation threats continue, some no longer see the point of the deal. While the U.S. has upheld its end of the bargain on the car tariffs; the EU, so far, has not, because its institutions must still approve their positions on the Commission’s proposal. The lengthy process has already tested Washington’s patience, with Trade Representative Jamieson Greer telling POLITICO in December that the U.S. wouldn’t grant further tariff exemptions unless the EU keeps its end of the bargain. After the Council of the EU agreed on its position in late November, pressure is rising on the European Parliament to vote on its own stance.

BRUSSELS — Nothing to see here. That was the message from NATO chief Mark Rutte on Monday, just days after U.S. President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to take Greenland by force — a move that Denmark cautioned would spell the end of the transatlantic military alliance. NATO is “not at all” in crisis, Rutte told reporters during a visit to Zagreb, brushing off the standoff and saying: “I think we are really working in the right direction.” Trump on Friday warned the U.S. “may” have to choose between seizing Greenland and keeping NATO intact, marking the latest escalation of his long-running campaign to grab the giant Arctic island. Controlling Greenland is “what I feel is psychologically needed,” he added. The U.S. president’s bellicose rhetoric has put the alliance on the brink of an existential crisis, with the prospect of a military attack against an alliance member jolting NATO into largely uncharted waters.  EU defense chief Andrius Kubilius on Monday echoed those concerns. Any military takeover would be “the end of NATO,” he said, and have a “very deep negative impact … on our transatlantic relations.” Alongside its oil and critical mineral deposits, Trump has previously cited swarms of Russian and Chinese vessels near Greenland as driving the U.S.’s need to control the island.  Experts and intelligence reports largely dismiss those claims. But Rutte said there was “a risk that Russians and the Chinese will be more active” regionally.  “All allies agree on the importance of the Arctic and Arctic security,” he said, “and currently we are discussing … how to make sure that we give practical follow-up on those discussions.” On Wednesday, NATO countries asked the alliance to look into options for securing the Arctic, including shifting more military assets to the region and holding more military exercises in Greenland’s vicinity. The U.K. and Germany are reportedly in talks to send troops to the self-ruling Danish territory in an attempt to assuage Washington’s concerns. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen on Monday also said the territory “increase its efforts to ensure that the defense of Greenland takes place under the auspices of NATO.” Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, speaking alongside Rutte, said that “allies have to respect each other, including the U.S. as the largest NATO member.” But Rutte also heaped praise on the U.S. president, underscoring the near-impossible tightrope he continues to tread as he attempts to speak for all 32 members of the alliance. “Donald Trump is doing the right things for NATO by encouraging us all to spend more to equalize this,” he said, referencing the alliance’s defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP, agreed last year after intense pressure from Trump. “As [NATO] secretary-general, it is my role to make sure that the whole of the alliance is as secure and safe as possible,” he said. NATO has previously survived the 1974 Turkish invasion of Greek-allied Cyprus, a series of naval confrontations between the U.K. and Iceland over cod and several territorial disputes in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey climaxing in 1987. But an outright attack by its biggest and most well-armed member against another would be unprecedented.  “No provision [in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty] envisions an attack on one NATO ally by another one,” said one NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. It would mean “the end of the alliance,” they added.

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. 2026 is here, and Europe is under siege. External pressure from Russia is mounting in Ukraine, China is undermining the EU’s industrial base, and the U.S. — now effectively threatening to annex the territory of a NATO ally — is undermining the EU’s multilateral rule book, which appears increasingly outdated in a far more transactional and less cooperative world. And none of this shows signs of slowing down. In fact, in the year ahead, the steady erosion of the norms Europe has come to rely on will only be compounded by the bloc’s weak leadership — especially in the so-called “E3” nations of Germany, France and the U.K. Looking forward, the greatest existential risks for Europe will flow from the transatlantic relationship. For the bloc’s leaders, keeping the U.S. invested in the war in Ukraine was the key goal for 2025. And the best possible outcome for 2026 will be a continuation of the ad-hoc diplomacy and transactionalism that has defined the last 12 months. However, if new threats emerge in this relationship — especially regarding Greenland — this balancing act may be impossible. The year also starts with no sign of any concessions from Russia when it comes to its ceasefire demands, or any willingness to accept the terms of the 20-point U.S.-EU-Ukraine plan. This is because Russian President Vladimir Putin is calculating that Ukraine’s military situation will further deteriorate, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to capitulate to territorial demands. I believe Putin is wrong — that backed by Europe, Zelenskyy will continue to resist U.S. pressure on territorial concessions, and instead, increasingly target Russian energy production and exports in addition to resisting along the frontline. Of course, this means Russian aerial attacks against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure will also increase in kind. Nonetheless, Europe’s growing military spending, purchase of U.S. weapons, financing for Kyiv and sanctions against Russia — which also target sources of energy revenue — could help maintain last year’s status quo. But this is perhaps the best case scenario. Activists protest outside Downing street against the recent policies of Donald Trump. | Guy Smallman/Getty Images Meanwhile, European leaders will be forced to publicly ignore Washington’s support for far-right parties, which was clearly spelled out in the new U.S. national security strategy, while privately doing all they can to counter any antiestablishment backlash at the polls. Specifically, the upcoming election in Hungary will be a bellwether for whether the MAGA movement can tip the balance for its ideological affiliates in Europe, as populist, euroskeptic Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is currently poised to lose for the first time in 15 years. Orbán, for his part, has been frantically campaigning to boost voter support, signaling that he and his inner circle actually view defeat as a possibility. His charismatic rival Péter Magyar, who shares his conservative-nationalist political origins but lacks any taint of corruption poses a real challenge, as does the country’s stagnating economy and rising prices. While traditional electoral strategies — financial giveaways, smear campaigns and war fearmongering — have so far proven ineffective for Orbán, a military spillover from Ukraine that directly affects Hungary could reignite voter fears and shift the dynamic. To top it all off, these challenges will be compounded by the E3’s weakness. The hollowing out of Europe’s political center has already been a decade in the making. But France, Germany and the U.K. each entered 2026 with weak, unpopular governments besieged by the populist right and left, as well as a U.S. administration rooting for their collapse. While none face scheduled general elections, all three risk paralysis at best and destabilization at worst. And at least one leader — namely, Britain’s Keir Starmer — could fall because of an internal party revolt. The year’s pivotal event in the U.K. will be the midterm elections in May. As it stands, the Labour Party faces the humiliation of coming third in the Welsh parliament, failing to oust the Scottish National Party in the Scottish parliament and losing seats to both the Greens and ReformUK in English local elections. Labour MPs already expect a formal challenge to Starmer as party leader, and his chances of surviving seem slight. France, meanwhile, entered 2026 without a budget for the second consecutive year. The good news for President Emmanuel Macron is that his Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s minority government will probably achieve a budget deal targeting a modest deficit reduction by late February or March. And with the presidential election only 16 months away and local elections due to be held in March, the opposition’s appetite for a snap parliamentary election has abated. However, this is the best he can hope for, as a splintered National Assembly will sustain a mood of slow-motion crisis until the 2027 race. Finally, while Germany’s economy looks like it will slightly recover this year, it still won’t overcome its structural malaise. Largely consumed by ideological divisions, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government will struggle to implement far-reaching reforms. And with the five upcoming state elections expected to see increased vote shares for the far-right Alternative for Germany party, pressure on the government in Berlin will only mount A historic truth — one often forgotten in the quiet times — will reassert itself in 2026: that liberty, stability, prosperity and peace in Europe are always brittle. The holiday from history, provided by Pax Americana and exceptional post-World War II cooperation and integration, has officially come to an end. Moving forward, Europe’s relevance in the new global order will be defined by its response to Russia’s increased hybrid aggression, its influence on diplomacy regarding the Ukraine war and its ability to improve competitiveness, all while managing an increasingly ascendant far right and addressing the existential threats to its economy and security posed by Russia, China and the U.S. This is what will decide whether Europe can survive.

The German government rejected claims by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Berlin prosecuted doctors and patients for refusing Covid-19 vaccinations or mask mandates. “The statements made by the U.S. Secretary of Health are completely unfounded, factually incorrect, and must be rejected,” German Health Minister Nina Warken said in a statement late Saturday. “I can happily explain this to him personally,” she said. “At no time during the coronavirus pandemic was there any obligation for doctors to carry out vaccines against Covid-19,” Warken added. “Anyone who did not wish to offer vaccines for medical, ethical or personal reasons were not criminally liable and did not have to fear penalties,” she said. Warken added that “criminal prosecution took place only in cases of fraud and forgery of documents, such as the issuing of false vaccine certificates” or exemption certificates for masks.  “Doctors [in Germany] decide independently and autonomously on the treatment of patients,” the minister stressed, adding that “patients are also free to decide which treatment they wish to receive.” Kennedy said in a video post on Saturday that he had written to Warken after receiving reports that Germany was restricting “people’s abilities to act on their own convictions” in medical decisions. He claimed that “more than a thousand German physicians and thousands of their patients” faced prosecution for issuing exemptions from mask-wearing or Covid-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic. Kennedy did not provide specific examples or identify the reports he cited, but he said Germany was “targeting physicians who put their patients first” and was “punishing citizens for making their own medical choices.” He accused Berlin of undermining the doctor–patient relationship and replacing it with “a dangerous system that makes physicians enforcers of state policies.” Former German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach also pushed back on the claims, telling Kennedy on X to “take care of health problems in his own country.”

Kyiv is in talks with the United States about a possible free-trade agreement, as Ukraine seeks to entice a reluctant Washington to provide firm security guarantees, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. Such a deal would involve tariff-free trade with the U.S. and would give Ukraine “very serious cards,” Zelenskyy said in an interview with Bloomberg published late Friday.  He has not yet discussed it directly with U.S. President Donald Trump, Zelenskyy said, adding that he expects to meet with Trump either in the U.S. or at the Davos conference in Switzerland, which starts on Jan. 19.  Prospects of a trade deal come as all sides start to consider more seriously how to end the war in Ukraine and how to ensure peace in the future. Europe and the U.S. presented a detailed plan for Ukraine in Paris earlier this week, including security guarantees with American backing and a promise to deploy British and French troops after a ceasefire.  But Washington did not sign on to join a multinational force for Ukraine, raising concerns about its level of commitment. The offer of a free-trade deal could act as an additional incentive for the U.S. to remain committed to protecting Ukraine after the end of the war. Zelenskyy said in the Bloomberg interview that he wants specific commitments from Washington. “I don’t want everything to end up in them merely promising to react,” he said. “I really want something more concrete.” Zelenskyy said his negotiator, Rustem Umerov, had a call on Friday with Trump’s special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, and that U.S. representatives have been in contact with Russia recently in “some kind of format.” Ukraine has given its views on territorial proposals, which the U.S. side will share with Russia for its own responses, Zelenskyy said.  Ukraine also is considering a plan, proposed by the U.S., to create a buffer zone between the two sides after troops pull back. “The format is difficult but fair,” Zelenskyy said. Zelenskyy added that he is not opposed to European leaders talking to Russia. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday joined French President Emmanuel Macron in calling for dialogue with Moscow. 

The leaders of the five political parties in Greenland’s parliament have a message for U.S. President Donald Trump: Leave us alone. “We do not want to be Americans, we do not want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,” the party leaders said in a joint statement Friday.  The statement comes after Trump has become increasingly explicit about his desire to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark — a desire made more real by recent U.S. strikes in Venezuela.  “We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor,” Trump told reporters during an event at the White House on Friday. “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we will do it the hard way,” he said. But the Greenlandic leaders pushed back, repeating their request to be left alone to manage their own affairs. “We would like to emphasize once again our desire for the U.S.’s disdain for our country to end,” they said. “The future of Greenland must be decided by the Greenlandic people.” They added that they have increased their “international participation” in recent years. “We must again call for that dialogue to continue to be based on diplomacy and international principles,” they said in the statement. Taking over Greenland would be relatively simple, according to officials and experts, though Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that doing so would spell the end of NATO. Eight of Europe’s top leaders backed Greenland earlier this week, saying security in the Arctic must be achieved “collectively” and with full respect to the wishes of its people.

When NATO members agreed last summer to increase defense spending, they lavished praise on Donald Trump for forcing the issue, believing that flattery would go a long way to keeping the president committed to the alliance and the cause of transatlantic security. But the takeaway for Trump, it turns out, was something else altogether — that bullying and threats were highly effective means of compelling longtime allies to act. And that’s largely why, when it comes to his pursuit of Greenland, he is returning to the same playbook, starting from a place of outward hostility, believing that’s what it will take to get Denmark to sell the island to the United States. “He got all these countries to pay their fair share into NATO security, and he did it by fear and sheer force of will,” said a senior White House official who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president’s strategy. “He’s been proven right about that aspect, and he’s going to be proven right about this.” Indeed, Europe has already bent the knee to Trump on multiple fronts. Beyond the defense spending, a European “coalition of the willing” has taken on the entirety of backing Ukraine with billions in defense aid and the European Union swallowed a 15 percent U.S. tariff on most European goods to avoid any further escalation. But Trump’s obsession with taking Greenland is the kind of existential threat to European sovereignty that, in the eyes of some European officials and diplomats who spoke to POLITICO, demands a stronger response. The most they feel they could do to placate him is commit more troops. “Once you start changing borders by caprice or by force, you don’t know where you end up,” said one of the diplomats granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject. Trump’s saber rattling about taking Greenland from Denmark, echoed and amplified by a number of top aides, ratcheted up within hours of the successful military operation that removed longtime Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro from power. “It’s a very effective message,” the senior White House official said. “Everyone now knows that America is not playing around, especially now.” Trump, speaking to reporters during an event at the White House on Friday, stated that taking control of Greenland is only a matter of when — and how. “We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor,” Trump said. “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we will do it the hard way.” Trump even questioned Denmark’s claim on Greenland. “I’m a fan of Denmark too,” he said. “But you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land.” Denmark has controlled Greenland for roughly 300 years and in 1916 the United States formally recognized Denmark’s interests in Greenland in exchange for the Danish West Indies, which became the U.S. Virgin Islands. The president and his top aides have repeatedly emphasized that Trump’s threats should not be dismissed, especially if and when diplomacy runs aground. And the president and his top aides are repeatedly emphasizing that Trump’s threats should not be dismissed, especially if and when diplomacy runs aground. “My advice to European leaders and anybody else would be to take the president seriously,” Vice President JD Vance said on Thursday, calling on Europeans to take more steps to ensure Greenland’s security given the increased presence of China and Russia in Arctic waters. “If they’re not, the United States is going to have to do something about it. What that is, I’ll leave that to the president.” After Trump raised the idea of claiming Greenland at the beginning of his term, Danish officials sought to keep the matter low-profile, hoping it would disappear. Now, with Trump’s interest renewed, they have urged their European counterparts to be more vocal about it. Denmark and six European leaders issued a joint statement saying Denmark and Greenland are the ones who “decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” With Secretary of State Marco Rubio expected to meet with his Danish counterpart next Wednesday in Washington, Vance and other administration officials suggested that military force was a long way off. Rubio privately told lawmakers earlier this week that Trump was looking to buy the island from Denmark rather than mount an immediate military operation, according to a person familiar with the matter and granted anonymity to describe the conversation. But senior officials have both publicly and privately refused to rule out taking Greenland by force, which would effectively end NATO altogether — a cost that Trump made clear he’s aware of in an interview with the New York Times, stating that, eventually, “it may be a choice.” Speaking so openly about rupturing a transatlantic alliance that has endured since World War II, however shocking to Europeans, isn’t new for Trump. His push for NATO to increase its defense spending began at the organization’s 2018 summit in Brussels where he threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance if things didn’t change. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, coupled with a growing belief among NATO countries that he might actually pull America out of the alliance during a second term, finally led member countries to increase their defense spending. Threatening a military takeover of Greenland as a last resort just days after the operation to oust Maduro has forced Europeans — and even some of Trump’s own allies and aides — to ponder just how far he might go. “The messages we hear regarding Greenland are extremely concerning,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters in Cairo on Thursday. “We have had discussions among the Europeans [on] if this is a real threat, and if it is, then what would be our response?” Denmark is trying to find clarity and build relationships in the U.S. The Danish embassy earlier this year hired Mercury Public Affairs, the former home of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. And this week, Danish representatives met with Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Danish Ambassador Jesper Møller Sørensen and Jacob Isbosethsen, the head of Greenland representation, “expressed an openness to discuss any measure that would enhance the security of the United States, while respecting the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark” during a Tuesday meeting, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) said in a statement. At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. had 10,000 troops and operated multiple installations in Greenland. The U.S. pulled back when it ended and now has one base and about 200 troops there. Trump’s administration has rebuffed Danish offers for the U.S. to station more troops in Greenland or open additional bases. His advisers have sent mixed messages about what Washington is looking for in private meetings with European counterparts. And Trump’s comments to the New York Times this week suggested that a more robust defense agreement and joint investment deals may not be enough for the former real estate executive. “Ownership is very important,” he said. “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success…ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”  MOST READ 1. The Supreme Court may leave alone the Voting Rights Act just long enough to keep the GOP from House control in 2026 2. Judge disqualifies US attorney in New York, tosses Letitia James subpoenas 3. The GOP’s Obamacare defectors were more numerous than expected 4. 17 Republicans vote to restore lapsed Obamacare subsidies 5. ‘Uninvestable’: Trump pitch to oil execs yields no promises Some Europeans have left private discussions feeling Trump is resolute about acquiring Greenland one way or another. Others say some of his aides like Rubio appear to be seeking an off ramp, according to two people familiar with the matter and granted anonymity to discuss it. The National Security Council’s director for the Western Hemisphere, Michael Jenner, has been the one to take meetings with diplomats about the Trump effort rather than the Europe director — highlighting the difference in how the U.S. and Europe view the matter. For European officials, Greenland is a European security issue, while for Trump and his team, it is the latest extension of the so-called Donroe Doctrine that envisions U.S. control over its backyard. “They’ve got this intellectual framework for thinking about the whole hemisphere, and they’re going to tie Greenland into that, which makes a lot of sense. So we didn’t have that holistic vision in the first term,” said Alex Gray, who served in the first Trump National Security Council and is now CEO of American Global Strategies. But Europeans have struggled to respond. “Danes and the Europeans at large need to do much better,” said former NATO policy planning director Fabrice Pothier, now CEO of Rasmussen Global, arguing that Trump’s desire for Greenland is not rational, economic or rooted in security concerns. “The problem is that this is not something you can easily address through economic sweeteners or national security arrangements,” he said. NATO, too, is now discussing options to strengthen its Arctic flank, after Trump’s claims that Russian and Chinese ships were swarming Greenland. That new effort is driven by a genuine need to beef up its Arctic presence, according to two NATO diplomats granted anonymity to describe the motivations, as well as a desire to take Trump’s concerns seriously. Some European officials fear that the Trump team might seek to acquire Greenland as part of a grand bargain for Ukraine. That is not something the president is likely to do, the senior White House official said. But, they said, everything is subject to change. “We’re gonna try to exhaust all our diplomatic options and see how, see if we’re moving in positive steps,” the official said. “What we have done with everything is we go along and then we reassess every step of the way. It’s just like a business deal.” Jacopo Barigazzi, Victor Jack and Seb Starcevic in Brussels contributed reporting.

ROME — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday called on Europe to appoint a special envoy to talk to Russia, as efforts continue to end the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. Meloni said that she agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron, who last month called for new dialogue with the Kremlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin “expressed readiness to engage in dialogue” with Macron, Moscow said in response. “I believe the time has come for Europe to also speak with Russia,” Meloni told a press conference in Rome on Friday. “If Europe speaks to only one of the two sides on the field, I fear that the contribution it can make will be limited.” Meloni warned that Europe needs a coordinated approach or “risks doing Putin a favor.” Since the beginning of negotiations over a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, “many voices have been speaking out, and that’s why I’ve always been in favor of appointing a European special envoy on the Ukrainian issue,” Meloni said. Peace talks aimed at ending the all-out conflict, which Russia launched in February 2022, have accelerated with U.S. President Donald Trump back in the White House, but Moscow has not indicated that it is willing to make concessions. The U.S. in November proposed that Russia be readmitted to the Group of Seven leading nations. But Meloni said it was “absolutely premature” to talk about welcoming Russia back to the G7 fold. Meloni also emphasized that Italy would not join France and the U.K. in sending troops to Ukraine to guarantee a potential peace deal, because it was “not necessary” if Ukraine signed a collective defense agreement with Western allies modeled on NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense provision. She suggested that a small contingent of foreign troops would not be a serious deterrent against a much larger Russian force. Reacting to Trump’s recent aggressive rhetoric toward Greenland, Meloni said that she “would not approve” of a U.S. military takeover of the vast Arctic island. “I don’t believe that the USA will carry out military action on Greenland, which I would not approve of and would not do anyone any good,” she told reporters. Meloni said she believed the Trump administration was using “very assertive methods” to draw attention to the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. interests and security. “It’s an area where many foreign actors are carrying out activity and I think that the message of the USA is that they will not accept excessive interference by foreign actors,” she said.   Meloni also countered Trump’s remarks Thursday that he does not need international law, stressing that “international law must be defended.” But she added that it was normal to disagree with allies, “as national interests are not perfectly aligned.” “When I don’t agree with Trump, I say so — I say it to him.”