The recent actions of the Trump administration, including the seizure of Venezuela's president and renewed interest in acquiring Greenland, represent a fundamental challenge to the international order. According to Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the European Policy Centre, Europe's response will be a critical litmus test for its credibility on the global stage.
A New Dog-Eat-Dog World Order
Donald Trump's intervention in Venezuela is not an isolated incident. It exemplifies a doctrine of interventionist isolationism, driven by a revisionist and neo-nationalist agenda. In this worldview, power is exercised bluntly, international rules are treated as optional, and alliances become purely transactional. The events in Venezuela, coupled with Trump's musings about using the US military to acquire Greenland, signal a dangerous normalisation of coercion and conditional sovereignty.
This shift creates a volatile environment where hesitation and ambiguity are no longer stabilising forces. Instead, they become vulnerabilities that can be exploited. The era where Europe could rely on others to uphold rules while practising restraint is decisively over. The core question is no longer whether Europeans disapprove of Trump's actions, but how pro-European liberal democratic forces will choose to respond.
Three Imperatives for European Response
The first imperative is to unequivocally oppose actions that undermine the international order. Trump's Venezuela policy strikes at the very foundation of sovereignty, suggesting powerful states may override it at will. Europe's cautious response, often justified by fears of jeopardising US support for Ukraine, is flawed. By normalising coercive regime change and defining spheres of influence, Washington inadvertently legitimises Russia's arguments for its aggression in Ukraine. European silence does not protect Kyiv; it weakens the moral case for its defence and invites further global disorder.
The second imperative is to rededicate existing European capabilities to resilience and security. This is not solely about future investment but about reorienting current military, economic, and industrial assets towards deterrence. True resilience means the ability to absorb shocks without capitulating, encompassing energy systems, supply chains, and credible defence structures. Full support for Ukraine remains a frontline test of whether sovereignty still matters. Inaction carries real risks; the logic applied to Venezuela and Greenland could be tested by Russia in places like Svalbard, probing European resolve in the Arctic.
The Cost of Unity and the Price of Aggression
The third imperative concerns achieving functional European unity. While essential, unity cannot become an excuse for paralysis. Governments unwilling to act, such as Hungary or others on a case-by-case basis, must face exclusion with tangible consequences. They cannot continue to benefit fully from shared defence and security cooperation while blocking collective action. Simultaneously, Europe must widen its circle of cooperation with like-minded partners including the UK, Norway, Canada, and Japan, pursuing pragmatic alliances to maintain global guardrails.
Ultimately, Europe may not prevent Trump from making destructive choices, but it can shape the incentives. If Washington moves on Greenland or pursues similar coercion, there must be clear costs. These cannot be symbolic gestures but measures that resonate domestically in the US and impact Trump's political base. Europe's leverage lies in trade, market access, regulatory cooperation, and industrial partnerships.
Greenland is Europe's credibility litmus test. Deterrence requires signalling that aggression carries consequences, not because Europe seeks confrontation, but because their absence invites escalation. The world is becoming harsher and less forgiving of weakness. Europe's choice is between passivity and responsibility. To grow up, it must recognise that playing for time and acquiescing only increases its vulnerability.
