by Rajnish Singh
Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens Frederik Nielsen, and Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, arrive in Washington DC today, Wednesday 14 January 2026, to discuss the island’s future with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The visit follows Trump doubling down on threats to annex Greenland, pointedly refusing to rule out the use of force. He told reporters he would take the island “the easy way” or “the hard way,” insisting the United States must secure it before Russia or China attempts to do so.
These Arctic tensions come amid a burst of foreign policy activity that has startled analysts and unsettled officials in Brussels. Within days of the new year, the US launched a military operation in Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro, continued efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza, seized oil tankers linked to Russia’s “shadow fleet,” and threatened to bomb Iran if its crackdown on protesters intensified. Trump is also pushing to revive negotiations over the war in Ukraine.
To critics, this flurry of activity looks like a revival of American imperialism. Yet for Europe, Trump’s actions present a more complicated picture. His methods often alarm diplomats, but many of his underlying aims mirror long standing EU priorities.
The intervention in Venezuela reflects the 19th century Monroe Doctrine, under which Washington treats Latin America as its sphere of influence. Several European governments condemned the operation as a violation of sovereignty. Yet Brussels’ strategic interests in Venezuela — regional stability, democratic governance and secure energy flows — are not fundamentally different. The disagreement lies in the approach, not the objectives.
Even the removal of Maduro, which many argued breached international law, fits a familiar pattern. The US has previously removed leaders it deemed destabilising — Manuel Noriega in 1990, Slobodan Milošević in 2000, Saddam Hussein in 2003 and Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 — often with European support. The killings of Osama bin Laden in 2011 and Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in 2020 reinforced this precedent.
In Iran, mass protests against the ruling clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard have prompted Trump to encourage demonstrators and warn Tehran that he “will take very strong action” if protesters are executed. Some European politicians, particularly on the left, recoiled at the explicit threat of force. Yet European governments have also summoned Iranian ambassadors, condemned the crackdown and prepared new sanctions. Iranian officials have been barred from the European Parliament. Again, the alignment of aims is clearer than the rhetoric suggests.
Trump’s efforts to “bring peace to Gaza” also overlap with Europe’s stated goals. Although a peace deal was reached in 2025 between Israel and Gaza, sporadic violence and restrictions on humanitarian access have persisted. Hamas’s announcement on Monday 12 January that it will disband may finally open the door to longer term stability — an outcome both Washington and Brussels have sought.
One of the most striking areas of alignment is Trump’s crackdown on Russia’s sanctions evading “shadow fleet.” US forces, with UK support, seized two Russian linked tankers near Iceland and the Caribbean. Europe has struggled to enforce its own sanctions regime, and many officials quietly welcome Washington’s willingness to act where Brussels cannot.
Greenland, however, is different. Trump’s renewed push to control the island has triggered genuine alarm in Europe, raising concerns about Danish sovereignty and NATO cohesion. Yet the likelihood of a US military seizure remains extremely low. For all the bravado, Trump is far more likely to seek a negotiated arrangement. Europe could offer security guarantees similar to those underpinning US bases in Okinawa or Bahrain, negotiate access to critical minerals and Arctic shipping routes, or deepen ties with Greenland — even offering a pathway to EU membership should it one day vote for independence.
Though some in Brussels argue that Trump’s rhetoric occasionally sounds sympathetic to Putin, his actions consistently undermine Russian and Chinese interests. Ultimately, Trump’s early 2026 agenda reveal a deeper reality: despite the noise, Europe and the US continue to share many of the same strategic objectives.
The real divide lies in the style, speed and scale of Washington’s actions. If Brussels can look past the theatrics and engage with the substance, this turbulent moment may offer unexpected opportunities for cooperation. With disciplined diplomacy and a clear sense of its own interests, Europe can shape outcomes rather than simply react to them, turning a volatile year into one of renewed transatlantic alignment.
By: N. Peter Kramer
