In a recent exchange in the House of Commons, Keir Starmer remarked, “He keeps encouraging me … to choose between Europe and the US. That would be a strategic mistake for our country.” This comment arose in response to Ed Davey’s query about the potential implications of U.S. actions in Greenland for NATO. As Danish and Greenlandic ministers prepared to engage with U.S. officials in the White House, a critical question emerged: Will Europe finally confront the necessity of choosing between its European alliances and U.S. interests?

Donald Trump has set a concerning tone, asserting that the U.S. would seize Greenland “one way or the other.” His administration’s intentions have become increasingly transparent, with rising figures around him openly displaying imperial ambitions. This includes individuals driven by profit and ideologies that echo troubling historical precedents. As such, the potential for U.S. aspirations in Greenland poses significant questions about international order and self-determination.

The true nature of Trump’s vision for a new American empire is becoming evident, particularly as the 2024 presidential election approaches. Maps circulating within certain political circles reflect a 1930s movement, initially aimed at creating a Technate of America, uniting much of North and parts of South America under U.S. dominion. This expansionist vision could reshape geopolitical dynamics, forcing Europe to reassess its own defenses and strategies within the framework of democracy in America and global politics.

Europe faces a daunting challenge: How to preserve democratic values in a world tilting toward oligarchic and imperial rule. The answer may lie in constructing a robust federal structure that can withstand external pressures. Should the U.S. launch an attack on Denmark or Greenland, Europe’s treaty commitments could compel a collective response, necessitating a reevaluation of NATO and the establishment of an autonomous defense and intelligence union.

In this scenario, Europe might need to consider decisive actions, including reviewing the presence of U.S. military bases and implementing wide-ranging sanctions against certain U.S. officials and economic sectors. Additionally, pushing for the expansion of the carbon border tax could become essential in mitigating U.S. influence over European markets. Strengthening the Anti-Coercion Instrument to limit the dominance of major American tech companies may also become a priority.

If war can be avoided, Europe’s best path toward maintaining autonomy in an increasingly imperialistic world may still require a strategic separation from U.S. influence. This includes reassessing military collaborations, bolstering civic engagement, and seriously contemplating initiatives like the expansion of public media and a European civil service corps.

Many European leaders have sought to delay confrontation with Trump’s administration, perhaps underestimating the urgency of the situation. The choice is stark: either Europe initiates a constructive rupture with the U.S. or faces the consequences of decisions made by American leaders. The window for decisive action is narrowing, with rising far-right sentiments supported by figures like Trump aiming to destabilize the EU from within.

By taking bold steps away from U.S. influence, Europe might even evoke a necessary reaction within America’s own political landscape. It is imperative for Europe to establish its autonomy and resist pressures that may lead to further erosion of democratic values. The stakes are high, and the need for action is urgent; Europe must navigate these treacherous waters with both courage and strategic foresight.