Donald Trump’s intervention in Venezuela is not an isolated incident. It represents his approach of interventionist isolationism, driven by a revisionist, neo-nationalist agenda where power is used bluntly, international rules are treated as optional, and alliances are purely transactional. In such a ruthless world, hesitation and ambiguity do not stabilize the system; they become weaknesses to be exploited by an unpredictable and aggressive Washington.
The capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, along with Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland—potentially through military means—should erase any remaining belief that this is merely erratic behavior. It reflects a worldview where sovereignty is conditional, spheres of influence are acceptable, and coercion is normalized when it serves the interests of Trump and his administration. The real question now is not whether Europeans disapprove, but how pro-European liberal democratic forces respond. Three key priorities stand out.
First, actions that undermine the international order must be opposed. Trump’s Venezuela policy is not just about Latin America; it strikes at the foundations of international order by signaling that powerful states may override sovereignty when convenient. Europe’s response has been cautious, even subdued. This restraint is often justified by fears that confronting Washington could weaken U.S. support for Ukraine at a critical time.
But this logic is flawed. Trump’s actions already undermine the case for defending Ukraine’s sovereignty. By normalizing coercive regime change and endorsing global spheres of influence, Washington echoes the very arguments Russia uses to justify its aggression. If great powers are entitled to reshape their neighborhoods, why should Moscow stop at Ukraine, and why should other global powers respect the sovereign rights of more vulnerable actors? Europe’s silence does not protect Kyiv; it weakens the argument for its defense, encourages Vladimir Putin to press forward, and accelerates global disorder.
Appeasement does not restrain Trump, nor does acquiescence preserve stability. It simply confirms that coercion works—and that Europe will continue to adapt rather than resist. Therefore, it is crucial for Europe’s leaders to speak out, and statements by figures like Emmanuel Macron and Frank-Walter Steinmeier are steps in the right direction.
Second, Europe must redirect existing capabilities toward resilience and security. This is not just about investing in future capabilities but reorienting current resources toward resilience, deterrence, and sustained security. Europeans possess significant military, economic, and industrial assets, but they remain fragmented, underused, or politically constrained.
Resilience today means the ability to withstand shocks without yielding to pressure. This includes energy systems, supply chains, industrial capacity, credible defense structures—and unwavering support for Ukraine. Ukraine is not a peripheral issue; it is a frontline test of whether sovereignty still matters in Europe’s neighborhood and beyond.
The risks of inaction are real. The same logic linking Venezuela and Greenland could be applied elsewhere. Russia might test similar arguments in places like the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, invoking great-power prerogatives in the Arctic to probe European resolve. U.S. attempts to absorb Greenland could be part of a broader agenda to weaken the European Union, further divide Europeans, and strengthen political forces aligned with Trumpism within EU member states. Weakness invites experimentation.
Third, unity is essential. European unity is crucial, but it cannot become an excuse for inaction. If unity cannot be achieved, governments unwilling to act—such as Hungary, and others on a case-by-case basis—must be excluded, and exclusion must have consequences. States that blockEurope cannot continue to fully benefit from collective action at the European level—whether in shared defense, security cooperation, or industrial investment—without upholding its own commitments. Solidarity is a two-way street and is not unconditional.
At the same time, Europe must broaden its circle of cooperation. This includes close coordination with like-minded partners such as the UK, Norway, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. It also means working with ideologically diverse countries where interests align, in order to maintain at least a basic set of global rules. In a fractured world, pragmatic cooperation matters just as much as shared values.
This is not about forming a new bloc. It is about preventing a slide into a global system where might makes right and coercion becomes routine.
Europe cannot stop Trump from making destructive choices, but it can shape the incentives. If Washington moves on Greenland—or pursues similar acts of coercion—there must be meaningful costs. Not symbolic gestures, but measures that resonate domestically in the U.S. and hurt Trump and his policy choices where it matters most: with his political base. Greenland is Europe’s credibility test.
Trade, market access, regulatory cooperation, and industrial partnerships all provide leverage. Deterrence requires making clear that aggression carries consequences—not because Europe seeks confrontation, but because the absence of consequences invites escalation.
Trump’s Venezuela gambit is a symptom of a deeper disorder. The era in which Europeans could rely on others to uphold the rules while benefiting from restraint is over. The choice now is not between loyalty and independence, but between passivity and responsibility.
Europe cannot afford to drift, hoping volatility will pass. Nor can it buy security through silence. The world is becoming harsher, more transactional, and less forgiving of weakness. Europe’s response must be to grow up: to recognize that playing for time and simply acquiescing only increases its vulnerability.
Fabian Zuleeg is chief executive and chief economist at the European Policy Centre.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the idea that Greenland serves as a litmus test for Europes credibility in demonstrating to a US administration like Trumps that aggression comes at a cost
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does Greenland as a litmus test even mean
Its a metaphor Greenlanda large strategically located territorybecame a flashpoint when former President Trump expressed interest in buying it How Europe responds to such a bold unilateral move is seen as a test of its unity resolve and ability to defend its strategic interests
2 Why is Greenland so important strategically
Greenland is located between North America and Europe controls key Arctic shipping routes and has vast natural resources In an era of renewed greatpower competition especially in the Arctic controlling or influencing Greenland is a major geopolitical advantage
3 Who does Greenland belong to
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark It handles most of its own affairs but Denmark manages its foreign and defense policy This means any discussion about Greenlands future directly involves Copenhagen and by extension the European Union
4 What does this have to do with aggression comes at a cost
The phrase suggests that if a powerful country can make a major territorial play against a European ally without a strong unified response it signals that similar aggression will be costfree A firm no establishes a boundary
Intermediate Advanced Questions
5 How exactly could Europe demonstrate credibility over Greenland
By presenting a united front This means Denmark firmly rejecting the proposal while receiving full political and diplomatic backing from the EU NATO and individual European powers It could also involve reinforcing partnerships with Greenland itself to support its autonomy and development making external takeover less appealing
6 Isnt this just about one real estate proposal Why is it a bigger test
The proposal was less about the land itself and more about the style of power politics it represented a disregard for alliance norms sovereignty and diplomatic process Passing the test means Europe can collectively manage not just this incident but the pattern of behavior it represents
7 What are the risks if Europe fails this test
Failure could embolden further unilateral actions
