France moved first and loudest, as President Emmanuel Macron publicly ridiculed the scheme, branding it absurd, corrupt, and fundamentally incompatible with democratic norms and multilateral international order.
Germany and the United Kingdom echoed those concerns, warning that stability cannot be built by legitimizing autocrats or monetizing peace, especially while threatening allies with tariffs and territorial seizure.
Even traditionally cautious European governments abandoned diplomatic restraint, signaling that Trump’s proposal crossed a threshold from eccentricity into outright danger for collective security.
Perhaps most striking was the reaction from far right parties across Europe, many once sympathetic to Trump’s style, now distancing themselves from what they described as reckless imperial fantasy.
The backlash intensified as Greenland reentered the spotlight, following renewed rhetoric suggesting annexation, purchase, or coercion, language that detonated historical sensitivities across Denmark and the wider European Union.
Denmark responded decisively, deploying additional troops to Greenland and reinforcing Arctic defenses, while officials warned bluntly that any attempt to seize territory would trigger armed conflict.
Greenlandic leaders spoke with rare unanimity, rejecting cash offers and intimidation, affirming sovereignty, democratic self determination, and solidarity with Europe over transactional deals.
Their message was unmistakable: independence is not for sale, and democracy does not negotiate under threat, regardless of who issues it or how loudly.
Behind the scenes, European parliaments convened emergency discussions, weighing economic retaliation, military coordination, and long term strategic decoupling from an increasingly unpredictable Washington.
Trade “bazookas,” once theoretical, entered serious debate, as officials assessed counter tariffs, regulatory pressure, and coordinated responses designed to n eutralize American economic blackmail. Continue reading…
