Within the days since a fractious Global Financial Discussion board in Davos, Switzeland, ended, a few of Europe’s major avid gamers have driven a story of continental togetherness. “Trump makes us feel not only German, but also European,” mentioned one influential determine – German football superstar Leon Goretzka.
If even on hypercompetitive fields of Eu football the controversy is of team spirit, then Goretzka – and the plethora of political leaders who’ve echoed such sentiments – has some extent.
However however, the Davos assembly used to be but any other dizzying second for Europe within the age of Trump. It used to be, to make use of football parlance, an actual “game of two halves.”
Within the first, the U.S. president used his speech on Jan. 21, 2026 to belittle allies and release a full-frontal verbal attack at the transatlantic alliance. Trump additionally caught to his caution that Greenland – a territory of Denmark – would ultimately sign up for the U.S., even supposing he took the army possibility off the desk that his rhetoric had up to now urged. Inside of hours, alternatively, Trump had abruptly sponsored down from threats that incorporated new price lists on a number of Eu companions.
In the second one part, Trump vowed to scrap any new U.S. industry boundaries and introduced the framework of an Arctic safety deal, negotiated with NATO Secretary Normal Mark Rutte.
At the floor, the Greenland disaster would possibly appear defused, a lot to the comfort of Europe. However the episode certainly shook the American-Eu alliance to its foundations.
As a pupil of transatlantic family members, I consider Trump’s direct threats over Greenland have in all probability greater than some other factor printed Europe’s vital safety catch 22 situation. Certainly, navigating international family members with the U.S. will stay difficult on account of Trump’s unpredictability and obvious ambivalence about keeping up a long time of transatlantic safety cooperation, the loss of a constant Eu manner, and Washington’s willingness to take advantage of any vulnerabilities amongst its allies.
If Davos can also be mentioned to have led to a 1-1 draw, then Europe must bear in mind that many football ties lead to a rematch.
Managing Trump’s unpredictability
In spite of the prime rigidity on show at Davos, the image used to be now not fully destructive for Europe. Within the face of power from Trump, Europe did handle a united stand in protection of sovereignty and territorial integrity. It additionally confirmed mettle via threatening quite a lot of financial countermeasures, equivalent to postponing a pending U.S.-Eu Union industry deal and promising counter-tariffs. And it confirmed that Europe had discovered classes from previous tussles with Trump. Certainly, EU leaders had bickered publicly all through the summer season 2025 negotiations over a U.S.-EU industry settlement, resulting in a less-than-favorable deal.
But Europe must now not take an excessive amount of convenience from this Greenland dispute, both. Europe can’t be fully certain that its unravel used to be decisive in convincing Trump to backtrack. His motivations stay quite unclear, and different elements, equivalent to sliding bond markets, may have been a larger mitigating affect at the U.S. president. Additionally, the framework of the accord that Trump mentioned with NATO’s Rutte is brief on main points, which helps to keep the likelihood open that Trump would possibly quickly restart the struggle.
Finally, even supposing Trump had been to resign to his Greenland ambitions, most likely for loss of just right choices in obtaining it, Europe may just hardly ever relaxation on its laurels. Trump’s unpredictability stays a big problem, making an allowance for the following disaster would possibly simply be a social media put up away.
The loss of a unified manner
Europe’s unravel to shield sovereignty and territorial integrity can’t single-handedly erase the lingering divergences that exist when it comes to dealing with Trump. But even so their variations in personalities and ideologies, Eu leaders are divided into large camps that vary from the ones keen to confront Trump, equivalent to Emmanuel Macron of France, to these, like Andrej Babiš, the top minister of the Czech Republic, who’re extra sympathetic. Within the center are a big staff of nations, together with Germany and Italy.
French President Emmanuel Macron is observed all through the Global Financial Discussion board in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 20, 2026.
AP Picture / Markus Schreiber, Record
Eu leaders additionally need to cope with the truth that historic ties with the U.S. don’t seem to be uniform amongst their nations.
Additionally, the unfolding of the dispute at Davos didn’t unambiguously settle what will be the very best plan of action transferring ahead. For the reason that causes in the back of Trump’s exchange of center stay murky at very best, the other Eu camps are prone to consider that their most well-liked paths had been validated.
The ones like Rutte who nonetheless consider Trump can also be controlled would were reassured via his eventual retreat; the extra confrontational advocates like France would have similarly observed affirmation of Europe’s want to get ready for the worst, partly as some way of the use of leverage to get Trump to backtrack.
Davos used to be, in some respects, Europe’s Rorschach take a look at. And this issues a great deal as a result of Europe isn’t with out manner or equipment to ward off towards Trump in any long term crises. It might invoke retaliatory price lists when want be, unload U.S. belongings – specifically its massive holdings of U.S. bonds – and even invoke the Anti-Coercion Software, the so-called industry bazooka. The latter could be an important transfer that will prohibit U.S. get right of entry to to the EU marketplace. It might additionally hit Silicon Valley specifically onerous, for the reason that Anti-Coercion Software may just pull the plug on social media firms or save you them from making an investment in Europe. None of the ones measures, alternatively, could be efficient – or certainly, in some circumstances even conceivable – absent larger team spirit and political will.
Bad dependence?
If anything else, the spat over Greenland is an impressive reminder that the Trump management would now not hesitate to take a look at to coerce Europe via reminding it of its quite a lot of dependencies at the U.S., specifically within the type of what Washington has incessantly framed as army freeriding. But, in figuring out how to reply to that drastic problem, Europe reveals itself stuck between a rock and a troublesome position.
At the one hand, the repeated adversarial phrases and movements via the Trump management may just push Europe to undertake a extra confrontational manner. In the end, U.S. brinkmanship on Greenland is prone to weaken, if now not take away, the case for additional lodging of Trump.
A Greenlandic flag lies at the flooring in Nuuk, Greenland, simply after Donald Trump walked again on his maximum competitive threats over obtaining the territory.
Sean Gallup/Getty Pictures
This could also be hooked up to a broader rejection of Trump around the Eu public. An vast majority view him as a destructive drive for peace and safety, while best 16% of the general public now regard the U.S. as an best friend. This disaffection even won flooring over Greenland amongst Eu far-right populist events, who’re generally extra MAGA-friendly.
However however, Eu leaders need to mood this home push for a extra assertive stance with the realities in their more than one dependencies on the US. Those vulnerabilities, in flip, may just really well be weaponized via Trump. Thus, Europe’s choice to transport clear of Russian gasoline after 2022 incorporated a shift to shopping for extra U.S. liquefied herbal gasoline. That would simply develop into a power level.
None of those dependencies can also be solved or mitigated within the quick time period, nor does each chief draw the similar conclusion as to what trail to pursue. Whilst Rutte turns out resigned or if now not actively sympathetic to Trump’s place, and calls Eu protection with out the U.S. a “dream,” former Italian Top Minister Mario Monti and previous Eu Parliament member Sylvie Goulard disagree vehemently. Of their view, the credibility of the U.S. safety ensure is lower than convincing in gentle of Trump’s repeated assaults towards Europe. If that’s the case, why pay a worth for a coverage that won’t even exist?
Trump’s Greenland risk used to be a profound surprise for the transatlantic alliance. However it’s some distance from transparent if Europe can or will draw classes to assist it undertake a extra united technique to maintain its safety.
