A spat over Greenland has erupted into a broader transatlantic confrontation, with Washington’s push for the island prompting threats of retaliatory tariffs from Brussels. President Trump recently warned eight European countries with the prospect of new duties amid US interest in expanding its presence on Greenland, spurring an emergency EU meeting to consider countermeasures valued at roughly €93 billion.
Paris has taken the lead inside the Union, pressing for activation of the so‑called “anti‑coercion mechanism” — a trade tool that Brussels once contemplated during the US‑China tariff clashes and that officials describe as a high‑yield deterrent. French officials characterise the mechanism as a way to impose calibrated economic costs on a partner that uses coercion to achieve geopolitical aims, a signal that the EU is prepared to move beyond diplomatic protest.
Chinese commentator Su Xiaohui, cited in domestic coverage, frames Europe’s response as a combination of righteous anger and pragmatic calculation: Brussels wants to demonstrate that unilateral pressure on an ally’s sovereignty will carry a price, but it must also avoid overplaying its hand. The goal, she says, is to create sufficient deterrence to prevent further US pressure on Greenland and related manoeuvres without provoking a destructive trade war.
That balancing act explains European caution. If the EU imposes tariffs in retaliation, it risks spiralling into a trade confrontation that could hurt European exporters and consumers as much as it hurts Washington. Internal divisions within the bloc over the appropriate mix of economic, security and diplomatic measures further complicate any unified response, while long‑standing European dependence on US defence, intelligence and technology constrains how far Brussels can go.
The dispute matters beyond transatlantic relations because Greenland sits at the geopolitical fulcrum of the Arctic, a region that is rapidly strategic for shipping lanes, resource access and military posture. A visible rift between NATO partners over territory and trade hands leverage to other actors — notably Russia and China — who are expanding their Arctic and polar footprints and stand ready to exploit Western disunity.
Europe’s immediate choices are therefore constrained but consequential: it can issue symbolic sanctions to shore up allied morale and domestic audiences, deploy targeted economic measures designed to inflict maximum political pain with limited economic fallout, or pursue a more sober strategy of deterrence through diplomacy, reinforced NATO coordination and deeper Arctic investments. The evolution of this episode will be a revealing test of how the EU translates economic weight into geopolitical influence when confronted by coercion from a close ally.