The New Atlantic Disorder, Part I: Trump's Greenland Gambit and the Unraveling of Western Unity

When Borders Become Bargaining Chips

In a single week in January 2026, the foundations of the post-World War II liberal order were subjected to two seismic shocks that reveal how profoundly the global landscape has shifted. 

First, Donald Trump—now in his second term—openly threatened to impose tariffs on any nation that refuses to support his plan for the United States to "acquire" or "take over" Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Speaking at a White House health event, Trump stated bluntly: "I may put a tariff on countries if they don't go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security."

Second, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney concluded a historic four-day visit to Beijing—the first by a Canadian leader since 2017—where he forged a new "strategic partnership" with China. The agreement includes sharp reductions in Chinese tariffs on Canadian agricultural products, expanded energy cooperation, and a stated ambition to increase Canadian exports to China by 50% by 2030.

Taken together, these developments mark a watershed moment: Trump is weaponizing tariffs not merely as economic leverage but as tools of territorial coercion, while a close U.S. ally is deepening its economic integration with China precisely when Washington demands that democracies decouple from Beijing.

This is Part I of a two-part analysis examining how Europe—and the broader Western alliance—are responding to Trump's threats and belligerence and the fracturing of Atlantic unity.

Trump's Greenland Tariff Threat: From Joke to Coercive Diplomacy

When Trump first floated the idea of purchasing Greenland in 2019, it was dismissed as a bizarre real estate fantasy. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called it "absurd," and the story faded from headlines.

But Trump's second-term resurrection of the Greenland ambition is no longer a curiosity—it has evolved into a live crisis with explicit threats of economic warfare.

What Changed?

• Explicit Force and Coercion: Trump has openly refused to rule out military force to secure Greenland and has now added tariffs to the coercion toolkit. As he stated on January 16, 2026: "I may put a tariff on countries if they don't go along with Greenland."

• National Security Framing: The administration frames Greenland as essential for U.S. security in an era of great-power competition with Russia and China. The island hosts Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), critical for missile defense and Arctic surveillance. Its rare-earth minerals—vital for batteries, electronics, and defense systems—add economic urgency.

• European Pushback: Danish and Greenlandic leaders have flatly rejected any transfer of sovereignty. EU lawmakers are threatening to freeze approval of the recently negotiated U.S.-EU trade deal until Washington drops its territorial claims. Some want broader negotiations suspended as long as the U.S. "menaces EU territorial integrity."

• Deployment of Troops: Reports indicate European military assets have been deployed to Greenland as "security measures" in response to Trump's rhetoric, signaling that this is no longer viewed as mere bluster.

The Precedent: Territorial Annexation as Trade Policy

Trump's Greenland gambit represents a dangerous fusion of 19th-century imperialism and 21st-century economic statecraft. It revives the logic of seizing resource-rich territory on security pretexts—exactly the pattern that fueled past empires' overreach.

What makes this moment especially destabilizing is that Trump is using tariffs—tools traditionally reserved for trade disputes—as leverage to compel acceptance of a de facto annexation. This crosses a bright line: it weaponizes economic policy to coerce recognition of borders.

If successful, the precedent would be catastrophic. Any country with leverage could threaten trade punishment to force neighbors to cede territory or resources.

Carney's China Reset: Canada Breaks Ranks

While Trump threatens Europe over Greenland, Canada—one of America's closest allies and a fellow "Five Eyes" intelligence partner—is moving in the opposite direction: deeper into Beijing's economic orbit.

What Carney Achieved in Beijing

Prime Minister Mark Carney's January 13-17 visit to China produced concrete results that signal a fundamental strategic realignment:

• Tariff Reductions: China agreed to sharp cuts in duties on Canadian agricultural exports, including canola, beef, and pet food. These moves are expected to unlock nearly $3 billion in Canadian export orders.

• Strategic Partnership Framework: Carney and President Xi Jinping announced a new partnership centered on energy, clean technology, trade, public safety, multilateralism, and cultural exchange.

• Energy Cooperation: The two countries signed memoranda of understanding on oil and gas development, LNG, and emissions reduction strategies. Canada plans to double its energy grid over the next 15 years and has invited Chinese investment in batteries, solar, wind, and energy storage.

• Export Ambitions: Canada set a goal to increase exports to China by 50% by 2030, positioning China as a critical hedge against U.S. economic volatility.

Why This Matters

Carney explicitly framed the visit as part of Canada's strategy to move "from reliance to resilience" by diversifying away from U.S. dependence. In his words: "At its best, the Canada-China relationship has created massive opportunities for both our peoples."

This is more than trade pragmatism—it is a geopolitical signal. Canada is:

1. Publicly rejecting the U.S. demand that democracies decouple from China.

2. Choosing economic integration with Beijing over alignment with Washington's China policy.

3. Demonstrating that even close U.S. allies see Trump's unpredictability as a bigger risk than deeper ties with China.

The timing is striking: Carney concluded his Beijing trip the same week Trump issued his tariff threat over Greenland. The message to Europe is unmistakable: if Canada—geographically sandwiched between the U.S. and the Arctic, and deeply integrated with the American economy—is hedging toward China, why shouldn't Europe do the same?

Europe's Dilemma: Between Sovereignty and Commerce

Europe now faces a painful triple bind:

1. Trump is threatening tariffs unless EU members endorse his territorial claim on Greenland.

2. Trump's broader tariff agenda (including 25% duties on pharmaceuticals) is already inflicting economic pain.

3. Canada—a fellow democracy and NATO ally—is demonstrating that there is an alternative: deepen ties with China and diversify away from U.S. dependence.

European Responses: A Spectrum of Strategies

European nations are responding in varied ways, reflecting different threat perceptions, economic dependencies, and strategic cultures:

A. Defiance and Conditionality (EU Parliament, Denmark)

• EU lawmakers are threatening to freeze approval of the U.S.-EU trade deal until Washington drops its Greenland claims.

• Some parliamentarians want broader negotiations suspended as long as the U.S. "menaces EU territorial integrity."

• Denmark and Greenland have flatly rejected any sovereignty transfer, with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen calling Trump's ambition "totally unacceptable."

• European troops have been deployed to Greenland as a show of resolve.

B. Quiet Hedging (Germany, France)

• Major EU economies have not joined the parliamentary threats but are quietly exploring trade diversification.

• Germany and France are accelerating discussions on strategic autonomy, defense independence, and reducing reliance on U.S. security guarantees.

• Both are watching Canada's China reset closely, weighing whether similar engagement with Beijing could provide leverage against Trump.

C. Appeasement and Accommodation (Eastern Europe, Baltics)

• Countries most dependent on U.S. security commitments—particularly those near Russia—are reluctant to antagonize Washington.

• Some are quietly signaling they will not block U.S.-EU negotiations, even if Trump pursues Greenland.

• Their priority is preserving NATO's Article 5 guarantee, even if it means swallowing territorial coercion elsewhere.

The Core Question: What Is the Price of U.S. Protection?

Trump's Greenland gambit forces Europe to confront an uncomfortable question: If the U.S. can threaten tariffs to coerce acceptance of territorial annexation, what other concessions will be demanded in exchange for security guarantees?

This is not an abstract worry. Trump has already:

• Questioned NATO's Article 5 mutual defense commitment.

• Suggested he would not defend allies that don't "pay their bills."

• Threatened to abandon Ukraine unless Europe assumes the financial burden.

Greenland adds a new dimension: Trump is now explicitly linking trade access to acceptance of U.S. territorial expansion. If Europe acquiesces, it sets a precedent that economic access is conditional on geopolitical submission.

The Fracturing of the West: What Comes Next

The confluence of Trump's Greenland threats and Carney's China embrace reveals a deeper truth: the post-Cold War assumption that democracies would naturally align against authoritarian powers is collapsing.

Instead, we are witnessing:

• Transactional Alliances: Countries are choosing economic pragmatism over ideological solidarity. Canada's pivot to China demonstrates that even NATO allies will hedge when U.S. behaviour becomes too erratic.

• The Weaponization of Trade: Trump has normalized using tariffs not just for economic advantage but as tools of territorial coercion. This fundamentally undermines the WTO system and the principle that borders are inviolable.

• The End of Atlanticism as Default: Europe can no longer assume that alignment with Washington serves its interests. Strategic autonomy—once a French aspiration—is becoming a necessity for the entire EU.

• The Rise of Middle-Power Autonomy: Countries like Canada are demonstrating that middle powers can chart independent courses, even when sandwiched between superpowers. This will embolden others—from Australia to South Korea—to hedge more aggressively.

The Question for Part II

Part II of this analysis will examine:

• How the Global South and BRICS nations are responding to Western fracturing.

• Whether Europe can build genuine strategic autonomy or will fragment under pressure.

• What does Trump's territorial and economic coercion signal about the trajectory of U.S. decline?

• Whether multilateral institutions like the WTO, NATO, and the UN can survive when the hegemon itself becomes the primary threat to the rules-based order.

For now, this much is clear: The Atlantic alliance is unraveling not because of external threats, but because the United States under Trump is behaving more like an empire in decline—demanding tribute, coercing compliance, and punishing dissent—than a leader of the free world.

And when the hegemon turns predatory, even its closest allies start looking for the exits.

Stay tuned for Part II.