The Trump administration has repeatedly said that the US should gain control of Greenland, justifying its claim from a "national security standpoint" and warning that it will "do something" about the territory "whether they like it or not," The Guardian writes.

This puts the EU and NATO in a difficult position. Greenland, a largely self-governing part of Denmark, is not a member of the bloc, but Denmark is; while the Arctic island is covered by the alliance's defense guarantees through Denmark's membership, the Telegraph reports.

European leaders have strongly defended the sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of Greenland and Denmark to decide on matters that concern them, but there is still no clear strategy on how to discourage Trump - or respond if he does take action. Here are some options.

Arctic diplomacy and security

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers on Wednesday, but Denmark's ambassador to the US, Jesper Møller Sørensen, and Greenland's envoy, Jacob Isbosethsen, have already begun lobbying US lawmakers.

Diplomatic efforts will be aimed in part at addressing US security concerns, first by pointing out that an existing US-Danish defence treaty from 1951, updated in 2004, already allows for a massive expansion of the US military presence on the island, including new bases.

In a message directly addressed to Republicans beyond Trump's Maga circle, they will also underline that, as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen put it, a US attack on Greenland, effectively one member turning against another, would mean "the end of NATO."

More specifically, NATO ambassadors reportedly agreed in Brussels last week that the transatlantic alliance should move to increase military spending in the Arctic, deploying more equipment and holding more and larger exercises to help alleviate US security concerns.

Although Trump's claims that Greenland "is full of Chinese and Russian ships everywhere" are clearly exaggerated, diplomats believe that some kind of joint Western move to strengthen Greenland's external security could be the least painful way out of the crisis.

EU officials have said this could be modeled after Baltic Sentry, a NATO operation launched last year to secure infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, and Eastern Sentry, which expanded the concept to more broadly protect Europe's eastern flank from drones and other threats.

Economic sanctions

In theory, the EU - a market of 450 million people - has considerable economic influence over the US and could threaten retaliatory measures ranging from closing US military bases in Europe to banning European purchases of US government bonds.

The most widespread sanction is the EU's anti-coercive instrument or "trade bazooka", which gives the European Commission the power to ban American goods and services from the EU market, apply tariffs, strip them of intellectual property rights and block their investments.

But that would require the bloc's national governments to agree to use it, which - unwilling to inflict economic damage on the bloc and eager to keep the US on board on the Ukraine issue - they have been unlikely to do even in the face of Trump's threatened trade tariffs.

Europe relies on American technology companies in all areas, noted Jean-Marie Guéhenno, a former senior UN official.

"Whether it's data protection, artificial intelligence or software updates, including defense, Europe remains at the mercy of American goodwill," he said.

Moreover, for any threat of economic sanctions to be effective, Trump would have to believe it was real - which, at least so far, it is abundantly clear that it is not.

Invest in Greenland

Greenland's economy relies heavily on annual subsidies from Denmark, totaling around 4 billion kroner (around 530 million euros) last year, which cover roughly half of the vast territory's public spending budget and represent around 20% of its GDP.

Trump's promises to "invest billions" could be matched by the EU in an effort to keep the island - which, at some point in the not-too-distant future, is thought likely to vote in favor of independence from Denmark - away from the US economic clutches.

A draft Commission proposal from September suggests that the EU could double its commitments to Greenland to match the annual Danish grant, while the island could also apply for up to €44 million in EU funds for the EU's associated remote territories.

While Washington may have billions more to offer than Brussels, Greenlanders, having gained their independence, may be wary of opening themselves up to predatory American corporations and reluctant to lose their Nordic-style social security system.

Engage troops

All of the above would take time. Moreover, it is not clear whether Trump's ambitions for Greenland would be met by treaties or increased security in the Arctic: American "ownership" of the island was "psychologically necessary for success," the US president told the New York Times.

In a letter to the influential Bruegel organization, Moreno Bertoldi and Marco Buti argued that EU governments should "proactively protect Greenland from American expansionism", adding: "The EU has a rapid deployment capacity and should be activated".

In agreement with Copenhagen and Nuuk, they said, European troops should be stationed on the island “as a signal of Europe’s commitment to the territorial integrity of Greenland.” While this would not prevent US annexation, it would make it much more complicated.

"While there would be no need for an armed confrontation, the spectacle of the US taking the troops of its closest allies captive would destroy US credibility, damage its international reputation, and strongly influence American opinion and Congress," they argued.

A German government spokesman said last week that Berlin was working on a plan "including European deterrence" if the US tried to take Greenland, while France's Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, last year dismissed the possibility of deploying a French military contingent.

The EU's rapid deployment capacity is a framework for the rapid deployment of up to 5,000 troops from several different member states, under EU command, to respond to crises outside the bloc. This could change the US calculations, experts and some politicians believe.

"No one believes that a war between the US and the EU is desirable or winnable," said Sergey Lagodinsky, a German Green MEP.

"But a US military action against the EU would have devastating consequences for defence cooperation, markets and global trust in the US," he added. /Telegraph/

From the WorldTHE WORLD