The escalating US interest in acquiring Greenland has triggered a stark warning from within Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), raising profound questions about transatlantic relations and the future of the NATO alliance. Former CDU leader and 2021 Chancellery candidate Armin Laschet has urged Berlin to diplomatically dissuade Washington from pursuing what he describes as a militarily aggressive approach towards the autonomous Danish territory.
Laschet, currently Chairman of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, cautioned that any forceful annexation of Greenland would irrevocably damage the fragile trust underpinning NATO. “We must clearly communicate to the Americans, through diplomatic channels, that a military intervention against a small NATO member state would destroy the last vestiges of confidence in the alliance” he stated. He underscored that Washington’s own interests are not served by the dissolution of NATO, implying a significant weakening of US global influence.
While the White House has not ruled out military action, the current geopolitical landscape further complicates the situation. Laschet noted that Greenland is rapidly gaining strategic significance, with increasing sightings of both Russian and Chinese warships and commercial vessels in the region – a development he believes requires a coordinated NATO response. “This challenge could be jointly undertaken by NATO without the United States feeling compelled to incorporate Greenland” Laschet elaborated.
Laschet’s analysis extended beyond the Grönland issue, drawing parallels between current US actions and previous interventions. He criticized interventions abroad not as a unique attribute of the Trump administration, citing the 2011 raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden under President Obama as a similarly contentious action under international law. He downplayed the criticism at the time, stating, “We were all relieved then.
The article also addresses the muted European response to the recent alleged US involvement in an attempt to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Laschet defended the measured approach, arguing that overt criticism of the US president would have jeopardized ongoing negotiations regarding the war in Ukraine. When pressed whether this constituted appeasement, Laschet dismissed the suggestion, emphasizing the pragmatic necessity of maintaining US cooperation to achieve a swift resolution to the conflict and the protection of Ukraine. “What should we have done? Summon the chargé d’affaires at the American embassy? Impose sanctions on the USA? Freeze American assets? Demand Maduro’s release?” he questioned, arguing that a more confrontational approach would have been counterproductive. The overriding priority, he maintained, remains ending the Ukraine war – a goal he believes requires continued engagement with, not antagonism towards, the United States.
This stance has sparked debate within European policy circles, with critics accusing Laschet of prioritizing short-term diplomatic gains over upholding principles of international law and accountability. Regardless, the situation highlights the increasing complexity of transatlantic relations and the difficult balancing act European nations face in navigating Washington’s assertive foreign policy agenda.
