For the first time in generations, ordinary Europeans are learning from experience something that decades of integration never managed to teach them: their destinies are indivisible. Russian missiles are striking Ukrainian cities while their drones and fighter jets have already crossed into their skies. Trump speaks openly about seizing Greenland from a NATO ally as if European sovereignty were negotiable. His administration demands that Europeans dismantle their regulatory standards on digital privacy, climate and environmental protection, or face retaliation.
“Citizens are ahead of their leaders, demanding European solutions because national ones fail in such an evident way”
These demands are already translating into everyday experiences that teach hundreds of millions of Europeans that the nation-state can no longer protect them. And the data confirm the transformation: the vast majority of citizens are favorable to action at the scale of the EU. Citizens are ahead of their leaders, demanding European solutions because the national ones fail in such an evident way.
And yet, when the President of the United States threatens to annex Greenland, what do those leaders deliver? Diplomatic murmurs. Carefully drafted statements. The unmistakable sound of waiting for the problem to disappear. It will not disappear.
The Trump Threat
Greenland has become the proving ground for Europe’s most serious sovereignty test since the Cold War. Donald Trump’s repeated statements advocating acquisition, together with threats of economic coercion and a refusal to clearly rule out the use of force, constitute a direct challenge to the territorial integrity of an EU member state. Denmark is forced to affirm fundamental sovereignty principles knowing that it lacks the means to enforce them on its own. Brussels, meanwhile, offers consequences-free statements.
This hesitation teaches a dangerous lesson: that our territorial integrity is negotiable when politically convenient, that our solidarity is conditional, and that anyone with enough power can intimidate us into submission merely by raising their voice.
“The EU needs its own FAFO doctrine: a clear and credible commitment that threats against any European territory will trigger economic, diplomatic and institutional consequences”
Washington now speaks openly in terms of “FAFO” (Fool Around and Find Out, you mess around and you’ll find out), a blunt signal that challenges to American interests trigger consequences. Europe should internalize the principle, even if not the tone. The EU needs its own FAFO doctrine: a clear and credible commitment that threats against any European territory will trigger economic, diplomatic and institutional consequences, in a unified manner. Not debated case by case. Not delayed by unanimity. Automatic, proportional and sustained.
How Europe Should Respond in Defense of Greenland
This is not about military bravado. Europe cannot and should not try to match American military power. But the EU possesses formidable assets it has never genuinely deployed. It is the world’s largest single market. American corporations have more than three trillion dollars invested on European soil. The euro remains the only credible alternative to the dollar. We have a services deficit with the United States, which means that American tech giants and financial institutions depend on access to our market. That gives Europe leverage, if we choose to use it.
Think about what a unified European response could look like. Suspend the U.S.-EU trade agreement. Impose targeted restrictions on American services, including the possibility of suspending some of their platforms, beginning with X after Grok turned “spicy” and started generating sexualized images. Threaten to redirect sovereign debt away from dollar-denominated assets. None of these measures would be painless, but the point is precisely that Europe show it is willing to bear costs in defense of its essential interests. Deterrence only works when the other side believes you will act.
“When Washington demands that Denmark hand over Greenland, it is not asking a small Nordic country to capitulate. It is demanding that Europe accept subordination”
The deeper failure, however, is political rather than strategic. For decades, European leaders have lamented how hard it is to make citizens feel part of a shared project. And yet, here is the perfect opportunity: an external threat that treats all Europeans as Europeans, not as Germans or Spaniards or Danes. When Washington demands that Denmark hand over Greenland, it is not asking a small Nordic country to capitulate. It is demanding that Europe accept subordination.
But this is not what Europeans expect from their leaders. Survey after survey shows that European citizens want the EU to assert itself on the global stage, to protect them, to defend European interests, to speak with one voice. The gap between public expectation and elite hesitancy has never been wider.
Decline or Lack of Will?
The prevailing narrative says Europe is in decline: too slow, too divided, too dependent on American protection. Much of this is self-inflicted and amplified by those who benefit from European weakness. But decline becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy only if we accept it. Europe remains immensely wealthy. Our combined economy rivals that of the United States. What we lack is the will to mobilize that wealth collectively.
“If Europe fails this test, others will follow. Russia watches. China watches. Every autocrat who wonders whether ‘Western solidarity’ is real or merely rhetoric is taking notes”
The Greenland crisis is not a one-off incident. It is the first test of a new world order in which great powers carve up spheres of influence, while smaller nations, including European ones, are expected to accept their diminished status. If Europe fails this test, more will come. Russia watches. China watches. Each autocrat who wonders whether the “Western solidarity” is real or merely rhetoric is taking notes.
Europe has received several wake-up calls. It kept hitting the snooze button. The alarm is deafening now.
The era of strategic ambiguity is over. Europe must articulate, clearly and publicly, that any attempt to coerce or annex European territory will be met with broad and sustained retaliation. Not because Europeans enjoy conflict or seek it, but because the absence of that commitment invites it.
Fool around and find out. The moment has come for Europe to say it in earnest.
