Ever since Donald Trump started talking about reclaiming Greenland from Denmark, European leaders have hoped to escape his notoriously short attention span. Their repeated submission has put Europe in a bind. To get out, they must commit to not backing down.
While Europeans fear that Trump’s demands could destroy NATO, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that they don’t have much of a choice. „European leaders will understand that they need to be under the security umbrella of the US,” he said. „What would happen in Ukraine if the US withdrew its support? Everything would collapse.”
Europeans are slowly but painfully beginning to understand their true situation. The United States argues that they need to possess Greenland for their national security. Now they have turned against Europe, demanding it to hand over territories and people to satisfy the whims of a president.
Europe must learn the brutal language
The only way to maintain European independence is through escalation. To do this right, Europe must incorporate into its economic thinking ideas that seem foreign to a continent that prefers soft power over hard security strategies - deterrence, credible threats, and escalation of dominance, writes Henry J. Farrell, professor of democracy and international relations at Johns Hopkins University, in an opinion piece published by New York Times.
Credible commitments and "trip-wires" (those wires that, once touched, trigger a trap mechanism) are strategic concepts outlined by Thomas Schelling, Nobel laureate economist and thinker in national security, who passed away in 2016.
His ideas shaped America's nuclear strategy during the Cold War. He viewed proxy wars and threats of missile attacks as the brutal language in which the Soviet Union and the United States negotiated with each other, each seeking political advantages while avoiding mutual nuclear annihilation.
Schelling and his colleagues believed that major powers could deter attacks through credible threats of reprisals, even if actual retaliation would be difficult or painful.
Ambiguity was the enemy of effectiveness: threats had to be clear and devoid of gaps that could allow the executor to back down. The most credible threats were those that the executor had to carry out, otherwise there was no way out.
The concept of "dominance through escalation," developed by RAND futurist and nuclear strategist Herman Kahn, plays a crucial role in determining who backs down and who does not. Dominance through escalation means that if a conflict escalates and two parties attack each other, the power more willing to endure pain and continue to retaliate will prevail. As long as other powers understand this, they will not engage in fights with each other.
Memories from West Berlin
Such ideas could have motivated the eight European countries that conducted a small military exercise in Greenland last week. Surely, they did not believe that their short expedition could defend a vast territory against an American military incursion. Instead, they created what Schelling called a trip-wire.
During the Cold War, West Berlin was over 160 kilometers inside Soviet territory and was practically indefensible from a military standpoint. Schelling suggested that the United States could station troops there to die if the Soviets attacked. On the other hand, Soviet leaders feared that entering this trap could trigger a nuclear war. So they preferred not to take the risk.
Similarly, if America invades a territory with explicit military support from eight NATO allies, it must fear that this will precipitate a much larger political crisis. The tactics seem to have worked: the Trump administration quickly shifted from military threats to economic ones.
However, the European Union seems less comfortable when it needs to draw from Thomas Schelling's strategic playbook to wage an economic war.
European governments have hesitated for nearly a decade to reject Trump. Nonetheless, they have an economic trip-wire, however imperfect, that they can use if they agree: the so-called anti-coercion tool or commercial bazooka, as it is often called.
We have a weapon. Why don't we use it?
The tool was created in 2023, after European officials became alarmed by the increasing threat of turning trade into a weapon.
It is a platform for economic warfare and allows European Union officials to impose trade tariffs, deny access to financial markets, revoke intellectual property, ban investments, and impose import and export restrictions on countries attempting to coerce Europe.
The anti-coercion tool is powerful in principle, but has never been used on the economic battlefield.
It can only be implemented after fact-finding and consultations, and European governments can oppose its use.
In the past, larger EU states, such as Germany, have warned against using the tool to avoid being drawn into economic conflicts that could affect their national interests.
For now, the anti-coercion tool is more of a water-soaked firecracker than a bazooka, the American professor believes, noting that some European officials have argued that the mere existence of the tool serves as a sufficient deterrent against attacks. But deterrence doesn't work that way, Farrell emphasizes. If no one believes you will use a weapon against them, no one will fear it.
European officials continuously talk about the anti-coercion tool, but it still fails to deter, as EU leaders seem extremely reluctant to use it.
Now, an attack is underway. Trump is using tariffs and other threats to force Europe to submit. So what comes next?
Washington sees, but does not believe
By using the bazooka, the European Union will take on some risks.
It is considering imposing tariffs worth 93 billion euros (approximately 109 billion dollars) on the United States, but has not yet decided or activated the anti-coercive tool.
France has proposed its use, but most EU states want a dialogue with Trump before proceeding, and the German Chancellor has stated that any reprisals should take a form that "protects Germany's interests," which includes maintaining exports.
This is exactly why the tool was designed. However, Europe seems too timid to use the bazooka. Bessent joked, saying that Europe's most powerful weapon is the "feared European task force," suggesting that the EU will never reach the point of using the tool. Europe does not seem eager to prove him wrong.
Nevertheless, if Europe wants to maintain its independence, it must act. The anti-coercion tool, with all its flaws, is its best option. It should start the activation process and quickly announce the specific measures it would impose, the expert believes.
Such measures could include revoking intellectual property that could harm major American tech companies. The anti-coercion tool also allows reprisals against individuals and companies acting on behalf of coercive governments.
The limits of these tools are unclear and untested, but they could turn the rampant clientelism of the Trump administration into a weapon against itself.
Trump could trigger "Armageddon"
Billionaires and companies that have tied their interests to those of the president could suddenly find themselves in big trouble. Investors and crypto enthusiasts who drool at the thought of taking over Greenland's minerals and establishing their own private government there could find that their fantasies come at a steep price.
However, there is also a risk, admits the American expert: Trump could trigger "Armageddon" by immediately withdrawing all support for Ukraine. It would be a disaster for Europe. But it would also be a disaster for America and for Trump, as markets could crash, and the transatlantic relationship could crumble.
Europe must play its cards right if it wants to deter Trump's attacks and, eventually, in the future, those of China. If it does so, it will likely have the upper hand in negotiations.
The majority of Americans do not agree with Trump's attempt to buy Greenland, and many oppose the idea of taking it by force. Fantasies quickly deflate once the real costs become evident, but it is impossible for Europe to impose costs without assuming some risks itself, concludes Henry J. Farrell.
T.D.