Europe knows Trump’s game. Because Europe invented it.

Donald Trump came to Europe expecting to dominate it. Instead, he was sent away with a flea in his ear.

Like many people watching this drama unfold, I was preparing myself for the worst. A new generation of gunboat diplomacy, the dissolution of Nato and the fracturing of the rules-based order. 

However, the row over Greenland tells us something important about the world we are now living in – something to give us hope. Trump arrived armed with threats, tariffs and performative bluster, assuming that European countries could be picked off one by one. He assumed that pressure would fracture solidarity, that intimidation would produce concessions, and Europe would blink.

It didn’t. Europe closed ranks.

What Trump discovered is that Europe recognised his playbook because it has lived it, refined it, and ultimately abandoned it.

Europe invented coercive power politics. For centuries, European states built empires through a ruthless blend of military force, trade pressure, legal fictions and strategic intimidation. They perfected the art of getting what they wanted without always firing a shot. They learned how to extract concessions, how to divide opponents, how to cloak power in respectability.

Europe knows exactly how coercion works because it once ruled much of the world through it.

But Europe also learned something else, the hard way. When empires collapse and there are no weaker territories left to dominate, coercion between peers does not produce stability. It produces catastrophe.

Twice in the twentieth century, European states tore themselves apart in wars of unprecedented scale. Those wars were not accidents. They were the logical endpoint of unrestrained power politics between economically, militarily and organisationally comparable nations. By 1945, the lesson was unavoidable. Among equals, intimidation does not deliver lasting advantage. It delivers ruin.

That is why post-war Europe rebuilt itself on alliances, law and economic interdependence. Not out of sentimentality, but out of survival. Institutions were not designed to express virtue – they are the bedrock of the bloc. They were designed to prevent a return to the world that had nearly destroyed the continent.

This is the context that Trump, who has an instinctive hatred for strong institutions, misread in respect of Greenland.

When he threatened tariffs to force European acquiescence, he expected compliance. Instead, European leaders treated the threat as what it was: an attempt at coercive bargaining. They responded collectively, legally and calmly. The result was telling. The tariffs were shelved. Sovereignty was upheld. Trump was left claiming a vague “framework” and a promise to talk, more or less the outcome he would have achieved had he asked nicely in the first place… and with far less damage to his own credibility.

Europe did not defeat Trump by matching his bluster with bluster. While it did escalate the situation – with the implicit threat to deploy the anti-coercion instrument or “trade bazooka” – it did so legally, collectively and predictably. That is what Trump’s style of coercion cannot easily overcome.

In an increasingly illiberal world, it was a demonstration that liberal societies do not reject the use of power. We reject arbitrary power. The anti-coercion instrument is power made legible, constrained and accountable. It is escalation with rules, not escalation driven by ego.

The danger now is that Trump won’t have learned restraint from this episode. The risk is he will now pivot towards weaker states, places where institutions are thinner, alliances looser, and resistance more costly.

But the Greenland episode should give liberals confidence. When voters ask why liberals defend international law, alliances and European cooperation, the answer is simple:

Because we know what happens when power goes unchecked. Europe tried intimidation, empire and might-makes-right. It didn’t end well. The rules-based order isn’t naïve. It’s the lesson Europe learned from its own worst mistakes.

 

* Tom Reeve is a Liberal Democrat councillor in Kingston upon Thames

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

One Comment

  • Nigel Quinton 23rd Jan '26 - 12:41pm

    Thanks for a hopeful message Tom, one that very well sums up the case for a collaborative, rules-based international society. It would make a great speech for Ed Davey to deliver.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Nonconformistradical
    I second Henry's comments about Barrow - this south-eastener has at least, albeit not recently, set foot in the Barrow constituency (visiting friends who lived ...
  • Henry
    I do get very annoyed by the comments on these by-election posts. The over-exaggeration of our comeback because we won last week and then complain when we finis...
  • Daniel Walker
    @David Raw I am afraid I don't know that; however I am always wary of arguments that say we should have the cheapest possible democracy. (Which isn't to say ...
  • Daniel Walker
    @Kira I was at the debate where that policy was decided. There were two other options: one was the regions of England having the same powers as Scotland and ...
  • David Raw
    @ Daniel Walker Has the party costed the amount for changing to the arrangement you describe, Daniel, and what amount does it come to ? For my part I wo...