Acquiescence, And We're Better Off for It

On January 11, the "showdown over Greenland" was

at a “fateful moment,” Denmark’s prime minister warned, as President Donald Trump renewed his threat to seize the Arctic island "one way or the other”….

Trump has insisted that the U.S. must take control of Greenland to prevent Russia or China from doing the same — an argument Beijing dismissed as "an excuse" to pursue his territorial ambitions.

“I am not going to let that happen,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One late Sunday of allowing America's geopolitical rivals to control the vast, mineral-rich territory.

Asked if there was any deal either Greenland or Denmark could offer to prevent military action, Trump said he would love to make a deal. “It’s easier,” he said, adding: “But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.”

Europeans were not amused. Consequently, as of January 16, they had

begun to complement their strategy of engagement with deterrence. The idea is to raise the stakes of any forceful U.S. action on Greenland and demonstrate that annexing the island will not be an easy win, but have “unprecedented knock-on effects,” as French President Emmanuel Macron put it. Europeans hope that Trump is just testing the boundaries of how much resistance he will evoke, and that standing firmly united will make him back off.

To achieve this, European leaders are working with members of the U.S. Congress with the hope of future legislation that would make it more difficult for the president to make a move on Greenland. A bipartisan congressional delegation currently visiting Denmark and the island is meant to convey the message that there is no interest whatsoever for a U.S. takeover. In addition, Europeans are signaling to Congress that the possession of an island that is much smaller than it appears on the standard Mercator projection map is not worth the dissolution of NATO.

Europeans are also weighing their economic and military options to deter Trump’s threat. On the economic side, the use of limited sanctions, further punitive measures against U.S. tech companies, and the European Union’s (EU) anti-coercion instrument—which was already considered but discarded as a response to U.S. tariffs—are back as actions of last resort. However, Trump’s threat to use tariffs once again over Greenland may discourage some Europeans for fear of escalation.

On the military side, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden have deployed a small number of troops to Greenland to deter a fait accompli from the U.S. side (and France has proposed sending more). However, Europeans are fully aware that a military conflict with the United States would be a disastrous scenario that they will only lose. Other “nuclear options,” like limiting U.S. access to bases in Europe, are technically available. But this tactic would assume that the transatlantic relationship is already irreparably harmed.

Donald Trump heard this loud and clear and after his speech at Davos, announced on Wednesday that he and NATO Secretary Mark Rutte had "formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region."   "One way or another, we're going to have Greenland," the President had said. Europe called his bluff, and now we've agreed to negotiate.

Yet Glenn Beck, asking "what is the key to what happened yesterday,"  holds fast to his crush, remarking

I can guarantee you he- Donald Trump- or someone said to Mark, a message from the President, "Mark, you've gotta make this happen, you've gotta tell the truth and I'm not making a threat. I'm making a promise to you.

You bet that wasn't a threat, if such a conversation did actually take place.  "One way or another, we're going to have Greenland," the President earlier had boasted, Europe countered, and Donald was in no position to make the threat for a second time.

According to Beck, Trump or his respresentative added

If we don't get Greenland, if this doesn't happen, if we don't find a way so that we have control over the things that we have to have control over in Greenland, I'm out of NATO and you won't survive.

If NATO had not survived that, Donald Trump would have been the assassin and Vladimir Putin the beneficiary. Beck continued

And I won't say that, embarrass NATO, I can't say it aloud but I'm telling you that this is the end game here. We're out of NATO because it's worthless. I can guarantee you that's what happened. Everything in me says that's what happened.

It’s just a theory, but I bet Trump promised NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that the U.S. would leave NATO if a Greenland deal isn't made. That's how Trump changed NATO’s mind so fast: Negotiate or you're on your own. And Rutte would know he's not bluffing. pic.twitter.com/MaP7hRJdh8

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) January 22, 2026

We can't be sure this did not happen, though clearly if it did, it was not Trump himself. "And I won't say that, embarrass NATO, I can't say it aloud" is something which never would be uttered by America's, nay the world's, leading narcissist. If Trump can't be the center of attention, he can't be anything.

If there had been no announcement of negotiations, er, uh, a "framework," for a deal, Glenn Beck and his fellow travelers would have proclaimed it a total victory for the great dealmaker. President Trump's confrontational style would have persuaded those awful people across the Atlantic to back down, we would have been assured.

But that's not what happened. Instead, someone stood up to the demonic force. As Beck argued, the military might of NATO minus the USA would not have been able to withstand an onslaught from the USA. However, that onslaught would have been short-lived, for a reason Beck overlooked..Had there been an American casualty, Americans would have been out. Death would have been the key.

After his visit to the White House last March, Bill Maher pleaded "one good thing about Trump: he really, really doe not like war." Yet, the President's aversion may be not to war itself, but to the possibility of Americans dying in battle. Sensitive to public opinion, he is keenly aware that the instinct to rally around the flag rapidly loses its appeal once American deaths enter the picture.

In either case, when NATO nations faced President Trump down, he backed down. His prior bluster was belied by the willingness to talk and make a deal for what the President could have achieved without the controversy and distrust his shtick incited. That was no problem for the man who must always be the center of attention. This will be a problem for allies and for the United States of America itself.

Oh, Trump will eventually declare victory, in his signature fashion, exalting himself and deriding others. However, notwithstanding what Glenn Beck contends, President Trump overplayed his hand. He (apparently) believed he could and would intimidate Denmark into capitulating to his demand to turn Greenland over, perhaps for mere pennies on the dollar.

Donald Trump didn't completely capitulate. But he did stand down and the coalition of the free, here (thus far) and abroad, weakened, survives for another day.

Share |