In recent years, transatlantic relations have been marked by a resurgence of tensions, particularly following the threat of tariffs stemming from U.S. strategic interests in Greenland. Although that policy was ultimately rescinded, the author argues that this does not automatically diminish its significance in the dynamics of U.S.-European relations. Furthermore, the use of tariffs actually demonstrates how economic instruments can be easily politicized and mobilized to support broader strategic agendas. In this context, tariffs can still be seen as a tool that Donald Trump may once again employ to advance his geopolitical interests in the future. 

Amid this pressure, the European Union’s response reveals a dynamic that is more complex than a mere defensive reaction. Rather than responding in a confrontational manner or fully yielding to external pressure, Europe has instead exhibited a seemingly contradictory pattern of behavior: exercising restraint on the one hand, while simultaneously signaling a readiness to retaliate on the other. This duality raises an important analytical question: Does Europe’s response reflect indecision, or is it, in fact, a carefully calculated strategy? Therefore, this article argues that Europe’s response constitutes a realistic and cautious form of hedging strategy in the face of structural uncertainty within the international system—particularly in the context of the coercive diplomacy employed by the United States regarding its strategic interests in the discourse surrounding the acquisition of Greenland. 

A Calculated Restraint: Europe’s Defensive Posture

The United States’ tariff pressure regarding Greenland cannot be understood without first considering the territory’s strategic position. Greenland holds significant strategic importance for the United States in terms of Arctic geopolitics, national security, and natural resource potential. The idea of acquiring the territory is not new, discussions on this matter have been ongoing between the U.S. and Denmark since the 19th century. The issue resurfaced when Donald Trump publicly expressed his desire to gain control over Greenland, sparking a debate over the political rationale, the implications under international law, and the direction of U.S. foreign policy, which has been characterized as expansionist. Although geographically located in North America, Greenland is an autonomous territory that is de facto under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. The legal basis for Greenland’s status stems from the 1953 Danish Constitution, which officially ended Greenland’s colonial status and integrated it as part of the territory of Denmark.

The idea of acquiring this territory is not new; since the 19th century, this issue has shaped the dynamics of relations between the United States and Denmark. However, the issue resurfaced when Donald Trump openly expressed his desire to gain control over Greenland, sparking a debate involving political rationality, implications of international law, and Trump’s expansionist style in U.S. foreign policy. Last January, Trump openly stated on the Truth Social platform that the U.S. would impose tariff increases ranging from 10% to 25% on eight countries, including Denmark and Norway. In this context, the imposition of tariffs demonstrates how economic instruments are being used as the basis for coercive diplomacy to influence the political dynamics surrounding Greenland. Thus, the use of tariffs in this context serves as a strategic pressure tool that reflects the practice of coercive diplomacy in efforts to influence the political decisions of other nations. 

Latent Retaliation: Europe’s Offensive Signals 

However, viewing Europe solely as the recipient of coercive pressure is a misleading oversimplification. Behind its restrained stance, the European Union is actively preparing forms of counter-coercion as a potential response to external pressure. This is reflected in the emergence of discussions regarding retaliatory tariffs and the readiness to employ instruments such as the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) as a means of retaliation should tensions escalate. This move is reinforced by the strategic autonomy agenda, which aims to reduce dependence on the United States through the diversification of trading partners and the strengthening of domestic industrial capacity. In the context of Greenland, these dynamics underscore that the issue of sovereignty is not an area that can be compromised without consequences, and demonstrate that Europe has established clear limits on the tolerance of coercive diplomatic practices through the phrase “everything but territory.” 

The offensive nature of this response is latent and conditional; it is not directly activated but remains available as a strategic option. Within the framework of coercive diplomacy as outlined by Alexander George, this situation reflects the “try-and-see” approach employed by the United States, applying initial pressure without issuing a full ultimatum, while observing Europe’s response before determining the next steps. On the other hand, Europe responded with a combination of restraint and readiness to retaliate, thereby creating a two-way dynamic in these coercive practices. However, the final outcome shows that neither side is entirely dominant; while it cannot be denied that Europe relies heavily on the United States both economically and militarily, the threat of tariffs did not fully force Europe to submit, and Europe’s retaliatory options were not implemented either. Thus, coercive diplomacy in this case resulted in mutual restraint—not a one-sided victory, but a temporary balance between the two parties, holding back escalation while maintaining their respective bargaining positions. 

Between Alignment and Resistance: Managing Pressure without Escalation 

Essentially, both the United States and the European Union recognize that they are locked in a complex relationship of interdependence, in which security, economic, and political cooperation make them mutually dependent. Under these circumstances, open escalation could potentially harm both sides, even though Trump seems unconcerned about such “losses.” This awareness explains why Europe’s response has avoided direct confrontation, while under international law, sovereignty is an absolute right of a state that should not be interfered with by any entity. However, Europe opted for a hedging strategy that combines engagement and preventive measures. In the early stages, Europe sought to defuse pressure from Donald Trump by offering a more accommodating approach, such as expanding security cooperation in the Arctic while increasing NATO contributions, and opening up investment opportunities in Greenland’s natural resources. This series of strategies can implicitly be summarized as “everything but territory.” This approach indicates that Europe is willing to be cooperative by accommodating some of the United States’ interests, as long as it does not touch on fundamental issues such as territorial sovereignty. 

However, as it became clear that U.S. interests also encompassed territorial control, Europe began to shift its approach by supplementing its engagement strategy with preventive measures. European nations stepped up internal coordination, sought political support in the U.S. Congress, and considered economic and military options—albeit within very cautious limits. Measures such as the preparation of anti-coercion instruments, limited sanctions, and the symbolic deployment of troops in Greenland reflect efforts to raise the costs of any coercive action without triggering immediate escalation. Nevertheless, limitations remain evident, particularly due to Europe’s dependence on the United States in the defense sector, which renders “nuclear” options—such as open confrontation or restrictions on military access—unrealistic. Thus, this dynamic demonstrates that hedging strategies are a structural consequence of that interdependence itself, as Europe seeks to balance maintaining transatlantic relations with preserving its autonomy and sovereignty. 

Strategic Sophistication or Costly Ambiguity? 

Europe’s strategy of ambiguity in dealing with U.S. coercive diplomacy is not without risks. On the one hand, this approach provides flexibility in responding to external pressure, avoids open conflict, and preserves strategic maneuvering room amid complex transatlantic interdependence. On the other hand, an overly cautious stance risks being perceived as indecisiveness, which could ultimately weaken bargaining power and even encourage other actors to continue using economic pressure as a political tool. This is where Europe’s main dilemma arises: between maintaining stable relations with the United States and preserving sovereignty, not merely as a territorial asset to be traded, but also as a matter of a nation’s values, legitimacy, and self-respect. Therefore, the author argues that while a strategy of ambiguity can be understood as a rational response in an international system rife with uncertainty, this approach still requires a more clearly articulated stance to prevent it from being exploited as a loophole by external parties. 

Ultimately, the dynamics surrounding Greenland indicate that Europe’s response cannot be characterized as indecision, but rather as a deliberate effort to manage pressure within the framework of interdependent relations. The author argues that this strategy reflects Europe’s political maturity in navigating coercive diplomacy without being trapped in an extreme choice between confrontation and compliance. Nevertheless, the success of this approach will depend heavily on Europe’s ability to consistently assert its boundaries, particularly on issues touching on sovereignty. As such, Greenland has become a symbol of how Europe defines its position in the face of pressure from major powers within an increasingly competitive global order. These dynamics leave a smoldering ember in transatlantic relations that may appear to be fading but could reignite at any moment, with no certainty about the direction ahead. 

Abécassis, A. (2026, January 15). Greenland: Three Scenarios for Europe Facing a Predatory Ally. The Jacques Delors Institute. https://institutdelors.eu/en/publications/greenland-three-scenarios-for-europe-facing-a-predatory-ally/. 

Crystal, S.-H. (2015). Coercive Diplomacy A Theoretical and Practical Evaluation. Glendon Journal of International Studies, 8(1). https://gjis.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/gjis/article/view/38941. 

Fix, L. (2026, January 16). Everything but Territory: Europe’s Response to Trump’s Greenland Threats. Council on Foreign Relations . https://www.cfr.org/articles/everything-territory-europes-response-trumps-greenland-threats. 

Hart, D., & Siniver, A. (2020). The Meaning of Diplomacy. International Negotiation, 26(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-BJA10003. 

Kaldor, G. (2026, March 27). US-EU tariffs: agreement reached, but the risk of energy dependence remains. Renewable Matter . https://www.renewablematter.eu/en/us-eu-tariffs-agreement-reached-but-risk-energy-dependence-remains. 

Meşe, Z. (2026, February 23). The European Union’s Position on the Greenland Crisis. Politics Today . https://politicstoday.org/the-european-unions-position-on-the-greenland-crisis/. 

Parrock, J. (2026, January 23). UE Hindari Konfrontasi Usai Trump Batalkan Tarif Greenland. Deutsche Welle (DW) . https://www.dw.com/id/trump-ancam-tarif-soal-greenland-ue-tak-pilih-konfrontatif/a-75621634. 

Poitiers, N. (2026, January 26). What can Europe learn from Trump’s Greenland tariff threats? Bruegel. https://www.bruegel.org/newsletter/what-can-europe-learn-trumps-greenland-tariff-threats. 

Rawnsley, J. (2026, March 27). European Parliament gives conditional approval to EU-US trade deal. BBC News . https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33l4e6vdrvo. 

© Eurasia Review