Just like many relationships on the brink of collapse, the U.S.-Europe relationship has been filled with quarrels and unspoken tension since Trump returned to the White House a year ago, with both sides merely maintaining a facade of civility in public.
However, for many European governments—including America's most senior and loyal allies—Trump's threat to impose punitive tariffs on any country obstructing his bid to acquire Greenland has become the final straw. They believe a "divorce" is now unavoidable.
Privately, frustrated European officials describe Trump's eagerness to annex this Danish sovereign territory as "crazy" and "unhinged," questioning whether he has entered some kind of "wartime mode" following his Venezuela venture. They view this as a blatant, unprovoked "attack" on a transatlantic ally that warrants Europe's toughest retaliation.
"I think this is beyond the pale," said one European diplomat. "Europe has been criticized for being weak in the face of Trump. That's true, but we also have red lines."
Senior European officials are increasingly convinced it is time to face the truth: the U.S. under Trump is no longer a reliable trade partner, let alone a trustworthy security ally, and an urgent look to the future is necessary. "U.S. policy has shifted, and in many ways, this shift is permanent," stated a senior European government official. "Waiting it out is not a strategy. What we need is an orderly and coordinated transition to a new reality."
This coordination has already begun, and a major discussion on "what to do next" is now underway.
Unless there is a fundamental shift in the U.S. stance, this process is likely to culminate in a complete reshaping of the Western world, upending the global balance of power. The implications are vast, ranging from economic damage on both sides of the Atlantic due to heightened trade tensions, to security risks as Europe may have to attempt self-defense without U.S. help before it is fully prepared.
The U.S. could also pay a price; for instance, its ability to project hard power into Africa and the Middle East would be significantly hampered without access to the network of bases, airstrips, and logistical support currently provided by Europe.
Beyond discussions of retaliating against U.S. trade, diplomats and government officials across Europe are contemplating what a prolonged rupture with Washington would entail.
For most, this is a painful prospect, signaling the end of 80 years of peaceful cooperation, mutual support, and beneficial trade, dealing a fatal blow to NATO in its current form. Many governments are eager to salvage the situation, while Italy's far-right leader, Giorgia Meloni, is attempting to rebuild bridges.
Yet for some government officials, a "post-American" future for Western allies is not difficult to imagine.
Firstly, European nations, including non-EU countries like the UK and Norway, have been cooperating for much of Trump's second term through an increasingly effective group that operates without U.S. involvement: the so-called "coalition of the willing" supporting Ukraine.
National security advisors from 35 countries maintain regular contact, frequently meeting online and in person, and interact via informal text messages. They have grown accustomed to seeking multilateral solutions in a world where Trump himself is a major complication.
Trust within these circles is generally high, according to people familiar with the group's operations. This extends beyond the official level: leaders themselves are rolling up their sleeves and working within tight-knit new groups.
Leaders including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Mario Merz, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni often communicate in the same group chat.
Over the past year, they have honed a proficient communication mechanism for whenever Trump makes a wild and potentially disruptive move. "When things move too fast, coordination is difficult, and this group chat is very effective," said a person familiar with the arrangement. "It speaks volumes about personal relationships and their importance."
This "informal but active" arrangement is known as the "Washington Group," named after the cohort of European leaders who visited the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last August.
Their strategy for the past year has primarily been to stay calm, manage his policy actions, and avoid being provoked by his inflammatory rhetoric. This philosophy has driven the Ukraine peace process, with the coalition of the willing finalizing a peace plan framework—also signed by the U.S.—that includes American security guarantees for Ukraine. This marks a significant achievement, given Trump earlier ruled out a role for U.S. troops.
But Trump's recklessness over Greenland has now upset this balance.
The lenient attitude towards the U.S. President's threats has evaporated. Even typically cautious UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer bluntly called Trump's tariff threats "wrong," reportedly pointing this out during a direct call with Trump last Sunday.
The Greenland crisis has focused minds on one question: how to proceed without America by their side.
"The coalition of the willing was originally built for Ukraine," said another diplomat. "But it has created very close ties between key figures across Europe. They have been building trust and capacity for cooperation. They are on a first-name basis; calling and texting is easy."
In an era where the U.S. no longer supports NATO and European security, this model could become the breeding ground for a new security alliance. New arrangements would not exclude cooperation with the U.S., but would certainly not take it for granted.
Zelenskyy is also in the "Washington Group" chat, which presents an intriguing idea. Ukraine is the most militarized nation among them, boasting a large army, a highly sophisticated drone production industry, and a deeper understanding of reality than anyone.
While Ukraine has long sought NATO membership, the appeal of this goal seems to have diminished as U.S. promises of security guarantees become increasingly unconvincing.
Incorporating Ukraine's military strength, alongside the forces of countries like France, Germany, Poland, and the UK, the potential armed might of the coalition of the willing would be immense, encompassing both nuclear and non-nuclear states.
Although the topic of Europe needing to defend itself with reduced U.S. support is a familiar one, a flurry of initiatives and headlines has emerged from Brussels in recent days. Officially, the EU is determined to achieve self-defense capability by 2030.
A week ago, EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius proposed a 100,000-strong EU standing army and revived the idea of a European Security Council with about a dozen members, including the UK. Von der Leyen has been promoting a new European Security Strategy, though few details have been provided so far.
There is a widespread consensus that dialogue on building a new European security architecture must happen, and quickly. EU leaders are set to attend an emergency summit in person in the coming days to agree on a response to Trump's Greenland threat, though the scope of discussions is likely to extend far beyond that.
Face-to-face talks between the U.S. and Europe are also possible, as Trump is scheduled to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos.
After calls with Merz, Macron, Starmer, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, von der Leyen stated last Sunday that Europeans would be "steadfast" in their commitment to protecting Greenland. "We will face these challenges to European unity with steadiness and determination," she said.
