Peter Mandelson has criticized European leaders, including Keir Starmer, for what he calls a “histrionic” response to Donald Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland. He argues that without “hard power and hard cash,” Europe will continue to decline in relevance during the “age of Trump.”
In his first political remarks since being dismissed as Britain’s ambassador to Washington last year, Lord Mandelson claimed that Trump accomplished “more in a day than orthodox diplomacy achieved in the past decade” by capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
This intervention is likely to be viewed as a critique of the British prime minister, who has tried to maintain a delicate diplomatic balance since Maduro’s capture. This week, the prime minister signed a statement urging the U.S. president to respect Danish sovereignty over Greenland, after the White House indicated it was exploring “a range of options” to acquire the territory, including potential military action.
Downing Street reported that on Wednesday evening, Starmer “set out his position on Greenland” in a phone call with Trump, though no further details were provided. While Starmer has avoided criticizing Trump’s actions in Venezuela, he has consistently stated that Greenland’s future should be decided solely by the territory and Denmark.
In a Spectator article, Mandelson contended that the reaction to Trump’s moves reveals Europe’s “growing geopolitical impotence.” He urged Starmer and other European leaders to leverage “hard power and hard cash” to bolster their global standing.
The former ambassador argued that Trump would not invade Greenland because he doesn’t need to. “What will happen is that the threats to Arctic security posed by China and Russia will become clear to Europeans, performative statements about ‘sovereignty’ and NATO’s future will fade, and serious discussions will take over,” he wrote. “The bigger issue is how both sides of the West—America and Europe—will establish a modus vivendi in this age of Trump.”
While UK ministers have lamented the “disintegration” of the rules-based international order, and Starmer has reaffirmed his commitment to international law following Maduro’s capture, Mandelson asserted that the “rules-based system” has long been meaningless.
“President Trump is not some populist disruptor bent on destroying it; it ceased to have meaning before he was elected. He has not single-handedly broken up the postwar ‘global order’: if that ever fully existed, it started to evaporate two decades ago when China emerged as a great power contesting the U.S.-led unipolar world,” he said.
Mandelson believes European leaders have still not “adjusted to the revolution underway” and are “guilty of a lazy interpretation of ‘America First’ to mean ‘America Alone,'” despite U.S. interventions in Ukraine and Gaza.
“Europe is fixated on the social media posts coming from the White House without understanding the arguments behind them,” he wrote.
Instead of hand-wringing, he suggested European leaders should “ask themselves why the U.S. is making an adjustment and how they, as America’s allies, can mitigate its consequences.” He added, “In other words, how and when the piggybacking stops and Europe starts assuming its full military and financial responsibilities beyond fine words.”
He concluded, “This will mean accepting that Trump’s decisive approach in real-world situations is preferable to the hand-wringing and analysis paralysis of some past U.S. administrations, or the deadlock and prevarication that often characterize the UN and the EU, respectively.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the news story regarding Peter Mandelsons criticism of European leaders over their response to Trumps interest in Greenland
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What is this story about
This story is about Peter Mandelson a former senior British politician and EU commissioner criticizing how European leaders reacted when former US President Donald Trump expressed interest in buying Greenland in 2019
2 Who is Peter Mandelson
Peter Mandelson is a prominent British Labour Party politician He served as a UK Cabinet Minister and was a European Commissioner for Trade making him a key figure in EU politics for a decade
3 Why did Trump want to buy Greenland
Trump was reportedly interested in Greenland for its strategic location and natural resources It was seen as a move to expand US influence in the Arctic region which is becoming more important due to climate change and new shipping routes
4 How did European leaders react at the time
Many European leaders and commentators reacted with shock ridicule and disbelief They called the idea absurd and it was widely treated as a bizarre and unserious proposal Denmark flatly stated it was not for sale
5 So what exactly is Mandelson criticizing
He is criticizing European leaders for being overly dramatic and missing the bigger strategic point He argues they focused on the sensational headline of a sale instead of engaging seriously with the underlying US strategic concerns in the Arctic
Advanced Strategic Questions
6 What does Mandelson think European leaders should have done instead
He believes they should have responded calmly and strategically Instead of mockery they should have acknowledged the legitimate US security interests and initiated a serious dialogue about Arctic cooperation NATOs role and shared challenges like Russian and Chinese activity in the region
7 What is the broader geopolitical context here
The Arctic is a new frontier of geopolitical competition As ice melts it opens up resources and shipping lanes Russia is militarizing its Arctic coast and China has declared itself a nearArctic state The US view of Greenland is part of this larger power struggle
8 How does this relate to EUUS relations
Mandelsons critique highlights a recurring tension European leaders often reacting emotionally to Trumps unconventional
