The recent standoff over Greenland, initiated by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s expressed interest in acquiring the territory, appears to have de-escalated thanks to a firm, though largely unspoken, response from European leaders. While Trump initially escalated rhetoric with threats of tariffs and even hinted at NATO’s dissolution if his demands weren’t met, he ultimately backed down after discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This outcome wasn’t accidental; it was the direct result of Europe signaling its willingness to retaliate, effectively deterring further aggression.
The Logic of Deterrence
The situation highlights a core principle of international relations known as deterrence theory. This concept, born from the nuclear age and the Cold War, rests on the idea that potential aggressors can be dissuaded by making the cost of action unacceptably high. As Johns Hopkins University professor Henry Farrell explained, this doesn’t necessarily require overt threats; merely convincing an adversary that escalation will lead to undesirable consequences is often sufficient.
The historical example of U.S. troops stationed in West Berlin during the Cold War illustrates this principle brutally. While those soldiers couldn’t defend the city effectively, their presence created a calculated risk: an attack on Berlin would result in casualties that no U.S. president would willingly accept, potentially escalating to nuclear conflict.
Europe’s Subtle but Effective Response
In the case of Greenland, Europe didn’t need to deploy nuclear weapons or even issue explicit ultimatums. Instead, eight European nations conducted small-scale military exercises on the island, effectively establishing a “trip wire.” This meant that any U.S. invasion would immediately trigger a response from multiple NATO allies, raising the stakes for Trump.
Further bolstering this deterrent was the European Union’s anti-coercion instrument – a vaguely defined legal mechanism allowing the EU to retaliate against economic pressure through measures like investment restrictions or intellectual property seizures. While never explicitly invoked, its existence signaled Europe’s willingness to escalate if provoked.
Trump’s Retreat and the Power of Credible Threats
The shift in tone from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent before and after the Davos discussions is telling. Initially dismissive of Europe’s potential response, Bessent later pleaded with European leaders not to escalate, suggesting that behind-the-scenes conversations had made the threat credible.
Ultimately, Trump framed the outcome as a victory, but the reality is a clear demonstration of Europe’s capacity to push back against U.S. pressure. The likely result will be an agreement on Arctic security, allowing Trump to claim success while avoiding a costly confrontation.
The Greenland episode underscores that even in the absence of direct confrontation, credible deterrence can be highly effective in shaping international behavior.
