Da haben sich die zwei richtigen politischen Spinner gefunden – Trumps Grönland-Irrsinn und die EU ist stärker, als man denkt

With a single post, Donald Trump reignited a simmering conflict and at the same time pushed it to a far higher level of escalation. The US president appointed the governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, as special envoy for Greenland – a position that had not existed in this form before. The reactions followed immediately. In Denmark and in Greenland, the announcement hit like a political shock. There was talk of boundary violations, of an open attack on fundamental rules of international law – exactly the kind of behavior the United States has been practicing for months, both domestically and internationally, in many areas.

“I am pleased to announce that I am appointing the great governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, as the United States Special Envoy for Greenland. Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our national security, and he will resolutely advance the interests of our country – for the security, protection, and survival of our allies and, yes, the entire world. Congratulations, Jeff!”

Trump has openly pursued the goal of bringing Greenland under US control for years. Already during his first term, he spoke of “getting” the vast, resource-rich, and strategically located island. Now, in his second term, he is giving this ambition an institutional form. The appointment of a special envoy exclusively for Greenland is unprecedented. Until now, the US side had at most representatives for the Arctic as a whole. That Trump is now appointing a single person with a direct mandate for this territory is being read in Copenhagen and Nuuk as a deliberate provocation. The president made no effort to hide his motives. He explained that Landry understood how decisive Greenland was for the national security of the United States. In the logic of the White House, this is about military bases, control of Arctic routes, rare earths, and geopolitical dominance in the far north. Landry, for his part, left no doubt about what is expected of him. In a public post, he wrote that it was an honor for him, in this honorary role, to work toward making Greenland part of the United States.

“Give us our land back”

At this point at the latest, irritation turned into open anger. Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen spoke of an unacceptable step and announced that he would summon the American ambassador in Copenhagen. Relations between the two countries have been tense for some time. On several occasions, the Danish government had summoned US diplomats after reports became public about American espionage activities and covert attempts to exert influence in Greenland. Just a few weeks ago, the Danish military intelligence service publicly warned that policy shifts in Washington were creating new uncertainties for Denmark’s security. The political leadership positioned itself even more clearly. Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s head of government Jens-Frederik Nielsen declared jointly that one cannot annex other countries, not even by invoking international security. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, and the United States has no right to take over this territory. The message was directed explicitly not only at Washington, but at the international community.

Nielsen additionally emphasized that the announcement might sound big in the United States, but it changed nothing about the reality on the ground. The people of Greenland decide their own future. It was an attempt to mark sovereignty while at the same time calming tensions. Because in Nuuk as well, there is a palpable concern about getting caught between the interests of major powers. Greenland has fewer than 60,000 inhabitants, but is one of the largest islands in the world by area and of enormous strategic importance.

In Brussels, developments are being watched with growing attention. A spokesperson for the European Commission made it clear that the territorial integrity of Denmark, its sovereignty, and the inviolability of its borders are central to the European Union. While the decision of the United States was not commented on directly, the line was unmistakable: Europe stands behind its member state and its autonomous territory. Pressure is also growing within Denmark. Media reports point out that the appointment of a special envoy specifically for Greenland further constricts the room for maneuver of the American ambassador. Ken Howery, a close confidant of Trump, had previously responded evasively when journalists asked whether the US might take Greenland by force if necessary. He promised cooperation, but avoided the decisive question. Now Copenhagen is formally demanding clarification.

Who Jeff Landry is explains a great deal of what is happening right now. He is not an inexperienced provincial politician, but an ideologically clearly positioned hardliner from Trump’s inner circle. He thinks in friend-enemy categories and has built his political profile by demonstrating maximum loyalty – not through substantive policy, but through escalation and radicalism. Culture war, law-and-order rhetoric, the deployment of the National Guard domestically, demonstrative toughness against political opponents – that is his profile. Landry was not chosen because of diplomatic experience or regional expertise, but because he is willing to say out loud what Trump whispers in his ear. His statement that he wants to make Greenland part of the USA already reveals Landry’s diplomatic and international-law ignorance. The creation of such a post is not a routine act, but a signal at the highest level that Greenland sits at the very top of the agenda.

Behind this personnel decision lies a fundamental question: how far is the US government prepared to go to enforce its interests – even against close allies? Trump has repeatedly stated in March 2025 that he would not rule out military means to gain control of Greenland. This threat distinguishes the current conflict from earlier tensions. It turns political rhetoric into a real diplomatic stress test for transatlantic relations, what remains of them.

JD Vance confirms the US intention to take over Greenland by military force if necessary. (March 24, 2025)

Against this backdrop, another question is increasingly being asked in Europe, one that until now has been conspicuously avoided: why does the EU respond to daily national and international violations of international and human rights law by the Trump administration, to diplomatic escalations and open annexation fantasies, only with words – and not with consequences? Why this question is more than a moral anecdote is shown by a look at the actual balance of power.

It begins with medical care. What matters are not the finished medicines, but the chemical active ingredients and highly specialized precursor products without which cancer drugs, vaccines, or therapies for autoimmune diseases cannot be manufactured. A significant portion of these substances is developed and produced in Europe. They cannot be replaced in the short term, require years of certification, and precisely coordinated production processes. The United States lacks sufficient capacities and strategic reserves for this. A prolonged disruption of European supplies would not just affect prices, but delay treatments and interrupt therapies.

Similarly quiet, but consequential, is the dependency in the industrial backbone. Modern US production, from the defense industry to semiconductor manufacturing, relies on machines that deliver extreme precision. This precision is often created in European factories: in machine tools, laser systems, and industrial control technologies. Without them, not only civilian industries come under pressure, but also those production lines on which military systems are built. Substitutes are not available in the short term, and independent new developments would take years.

Europe’s importance for the military operational capability of the United States is even more direct. The global presence of the US military is supported by European locations, transport routes, logistics centers, and communications infrastructure. These structures cannot simply be relocated. Without European cooperation, response times lengthen, costs rise, and the ability to project power quickly shrinks.

Finally, there is regulation. European standards for data protection, product safety, chemicals, or digital services set global benchmarks because the European market is too large to ignore. US corporations adapt their products to these rules, not out of conviction, but out of economic necessity. These rules shape global supply chains and production decisions far beyond Europe.

Taken together, this does not produce a picture of dramatic dependency, but rather one of structural interconnection. The United States remains a military and economic great power. But in key functional zones of its system, it depends on Europe. This very reality makes the question of sanctions so explosive – and explains why it has so far hardly been discussed openly.

For Denmark and Greenland, the situation is clear. Borders are not family games like Monopoly or Risk, and self-determination is not subject to the Trump regime. With the appointment of Jeff Landry, however, Donald Trump has shown that he is prepared to openly challenge these principles. Whether Europe continues to respond only with statements or at some point with consequences will matter beyond this conflict. What is needed now is courage, not a shifting of responsibility.

Greenland made it clear in the elections on March 11, 2025 that it does not see itself as the next “Trump Tower Island.” The business-friendly center-right party Demokraatit triumphed with just under 30 percent of the vote. A party that wants independence, but not rushed. Even more striking is the rise of the more radical independence party Naleraq, which came in second with 24.5 percent. Together they now form the strongest forces in the Greenlandic parliament. While the businessman who has gone bankrupt multiple times continues to try to divide the world into possessions and deals, the Greenlanders demonstrate that democracy does not respond to loudmouthedness, but to real problems. Trump can continue to play the card of national security, he can float troop deployments and make political threats – but Greenland has shown him the cold shoulder.

One might think Trump would have learned from his failed purchase offer in 2019, when Denmark dismissed the proposal with a curt “Greenland is not for sale.” But Trump’s reality works differently. In a speech in March 2025, he questioned whether Copenhagen even had the right to claim the island and declared openly: “I believe this will happen.” The words of a political crank who has been terrorizing the world for eleven months. Someone should finally tell him clearly: “Enough.”

To be continued ...