As the FT points out:
'The [US] president seems to classify counterparts not as friend or foe, but as strong or weak; Europe — arguably paying the price for not standing up to Trump more robustly on tariffs — has been placed in the weak camp'!
So, they say Europe must adopt a 'sharp-elbowed approach' in dealing with the Trump on Greenland.
Is too late to now play hardball with Trump or (perhaps) Greenland is a good opportunity to establish a renewed strength?
@ChrisMayLA6 Europe is by definition weak, looking at how clumsy the political governance structure is, which makes it impossible to actually do something quickly.
Add to that, that western europe is still damaged by WW2 and has an inherent culture of weakness.
What I'd be interested in when it comes to greenland is how Trump would respond to an ultimatum.
If you take greenland, we (europe) will leave Nato and form our own EU defense. Have fun defending against china on your own.
Another part of the bargain could be to say that if you take greenland, we'll stop all trade and focus on china.
Yes, that is far from ideal, but my enemies enemy is my friend, and strongmen can't afford the luxury of balanced, win/win solutions.
This will never happen, but I would be very interested how Trump would react to a propose EU/China alliance. ;)
I'd agree, the key lever would be economic inoculation.... and a further pivot to China & Asia as preferred economic partners.... the NATO issue, reflects the need (already clear) for Europe to be more attentive to its *own* security
@ChrisMayLA6 Hah!
Another are where we would be in harmonious agreement!
For me, this is the lesser evil though. Ideally I'd like europe to trade with all the world, and distance itself from china, but in our specific situation I think it would teach Trump a lesson.
Europe is caught in the same appeasement indecision of the 1930s. How much evidence does it take that the US has turned fascist ? One irony is that those generally most gung-ho for robust action are now the most indecisive - but this too parallels the appeasement of France and the UK in the 1930s - for example their failure to support the democratically elected Spanish government.
These parallels offer insights into both our time and the 1930s - because they allow us to really feel the uncertainty of those times. Chamberlain, Starmer, Macron...
But there's another mistake to be made here: standing divided. It couldn't be clearer that the interests of the EU with regard to the US are aligned with the G77 (which actually now includes 134 countries) and - crucially - with China, Canada, and others. Acting together on international trade and finance - and exercising political control, over their central banks - such an alliance could easily defeat Trump (albeit at the price of a period of chaos inside the US) - while at the same time reorienting international finance against climate-ecological breakdown.
@GeofCox @ChrisMayLA6 If Trump isn’t going to help defend Europe why has he so many troops here?
@ChrisMayLA6 The latter, in my view. It's also a good opportunity for the UK to prove its ability to co-operate with EU states and the EU as a whole.
Expelling the US from NATO and retaking all the forwards operating bases they established from the 1940s onward is looking more and more like a good idea.
