How would Canada, the EU, NATO react to the US annexation of Greenland? – Nationally
The possibility of the US taking Greenland by force raises many unprecedented questions – including whether Canada, the European Union and NATO would respond or retaliate against a perceived ally.
A high-level meeting between Greenlandic, Danish and US officials this week did not resolve “fundamental disagreements” over the territory’s sovereignty but set the stage for further talks. The White House made it clear on Thursday that US President Donald Trump’s desire to control Greenland has not changed after the meeting.
“He wants the United States to get Greenland. He thinks it’s best for our national security to do that,” said White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt.
Denmark and its European allies are sending more troops to the area as a show of strength and commitment to Arctic security.
Experts say there are other non-military options available should the US take over or invade Greenland, or at least threaten to try to get Trump to back down.
Whether those economic measures are actually implemented is another matter, say those experts.
“I think it is unlikely that we will reach that point where we have to seriously discuss the consequences of the US move to Greenland,” said Otto Svendsen, associate with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“So it remains contingency planning for an event that cannot be expected too much. That being said … Denmark will do everything in its power to put together a strong European response.”
Here’s what that might involve.
EU trade, technological disruption?
Experts agree too much pressure can be applied to trade and technology around the US.
The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to delay implementing a trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest threats against Greenland, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Many lawmakers have complained that the deal is inconsistent, with the EU required to cut many import duties while the US sticks to a broad 15% tariff on European goods.
Get the latest country news
For news that affects Canada and the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you as they happen.
An even stronger move could trigger the EU’s anti-enforcement tool – known as the “trade bazooka” – which would allow the bloc to hit non-member countries with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures.
Although the regulation defines enforcement as “measures affecting trade and investment,” Svendsen said it could also be used in a diplomatic or territorial dispute.
“EU lawyers have shown themselves to be smart in recent years,” he said.
However, David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said in an email that economic measures against the US are likely “given the large asymmetry in defense and economic relations between the US” and other western nations.
“Any kind of sanctions against the US are unreasonable for the same reason they would impose sanctions on other people: they have power,” Perry added.
Target US tech companies?
The most similar – and potentially more dangerous – form of retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, Svendsen said, would be fines or bans on US technology companies such as Google, Meta and X operating in Europe.
This is because the Trump administration is focused on preventing what it calls “attacks” on American companies by foreign governments that want to control their online content or tax their income, which has led Canada, Britain and the EU to repeal laws such as taxes on digital services.
“I think that would be a very smart and targeted way to reach economic benefits very close to the president, while minimizing the direct impact on the European economy,” Svendsen said, calling the move “low-hanging fruit.”
He also compared the ban on future US technology platforms to how Europe moved to shut off Russian gas after a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“If you were to tell anyone at that time that Europe would eliminate its dependence on Russian gas within a two-year period … that would have been considered completely impossible,” he said.
“Getting the European economy out of American technology can be painful in the short term, but they have proven that they can quickly get out of that dependency if there is political will behind it beforehand.”
A brutal US takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders say.
Trump himself admitted that it would be a “choice” between keeping the alliance or acquiring Greenland.
There is no provision within the treaty establishing NATO that addresses the possibility of a NATO member replacing another, and how the alliance should respond to such an action.
A NATO spokesperson told Global News that it would not “speculate on hypothetical scenarios” when asked how it might act.
“None of this is likely to happen in the NATO sense,” Perry said. “It is an alliance designed to bind the US to European security, and it revolves around the US. So there is no situation for NATO to do that to the US”
Denmark and other European countries could move to reduce or close US military bases in their countries as a possible response, experts say.
Balkan Devlen, senior officer at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and director of the Transatlantic Program, said in an interview that the US annexation of Greenland would force Canada to focus entirely on strengthening its defenses in the Arctic.
That could include trying to break away from NORAD, the US’s northern defense network, in accordance with the domestic Arctic command, he said — though that process would take years and require Canada to increase defense spending even more.
“Don’t worry about five percent (of GDP) – we’d probably have to go to like seven, eight, nine percent in defense spending to be able to do anything of that nature,” he said. “It is not clear that we will be able to have enough people to do that.”
Devlen added that any retaliatory action, whether military or financial, needs to be targeted and proportionate to what the US is doing.
“The problem with nuclear weapons is that once you use them, they are gone,” he said. “And if it doesn’t do damage or change the behavior of the other party, you’ve actually lost a lot of power and you might lose a lot.”
