Abducting – Acquiring – stealing – looting – annexing.

( Ten minute read)

Europe stands at a precipice.

Following the US military operation in Venezuela, President Donald Trump and his close advisers have reiterated that Greenland – currently an autonomous territory of Denmark –  will be next.,

These are not random provocations but coordinated pressure tactics against a sovereign territory.

Threats against NATO members (such as Denmark) could also embolden Russia even more and lead to more uncertainty for Europe.

So why are European leaders not more forcefully calling out Trump’s threats against Greenland – as well as his government’s shocking intervention in Venezuela?

And what’s at stake?

European leaders have been forced to confront a reality they hoped to avoid: the US, NATO’s founding member, may become the alliance’s gravest threat.

But they don’t articulate any solid counter-threat to Trump’s comments.

They could, for instance, have reiterated their long-term partnership, the potential collapse of the biggest alliance in human history, or the costs in losing cooperation (both economic and security) with Europe that directly benefits the US.

Such equivocation on the most basic, foundational concept of international law not only signals incredible weakness. It also undermines Europe’s credibility when invoking the “rules-based order” against Russia and its actions in Ukraine, making it near impossible to mobilise Global South support, sustain sanctions coalitions, or claim principled restraint.

When European leaders respond so cautiously to the Venezuela operation – stressing respect for international law while avoiding direct criticism of Washington – their principles are exposed as highly selective.

Russia understands this dynamic perfectly. Moscow has already characterised US actions as ” armed aggression ” while pointing to Western hypocrisy.

Moscow benefits from this in fundamental ways.

First, Western hypocrisy validates Russia’s narrative that international law is merely a tool the powerful use against the weak.

The vacillation on condemning US action in Venezuela or threats against fellow NATO members contradicts the European narrative against Putin’s war.

Second, NATO’s potential collapse or paralysis would hand Moscow a strategic victory that Russian military power alone has been unable to secure.

If the United States annexes Greenland, Denmark would face an existential choice: accept the violation and remain in a compromised NATO or leave an alliance that no longer protects its members.

All other members would face the same choice.

The NATO alliance cannot function if its members no longer share fundamental values about sovereignty and law.

Trump has forced Europe to confront whether it will defend these principles universally or accept a world where might makes right.

Will Europe leaders be prepared to confront their own hypocrisy or timidly accept the erosion of the rules they claim to defend?

Your Guess is as good as mine

Around the world we are excusing dishonesty.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com