While Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was touring Western European capitals to drum up support against Donald Trump’s alarming threats on Greenland, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys said that his country “is not taking either side”. Does this mark a new era in international relations where we accept that might makes right?
‘Only’ words?
The new US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is downplaying the significance of President Trump’s statements on the possibility of taking Greenland by military force. But he stresses that the US president is serious about buying the world’s largest island.
How can this be done if Denmark firmly rejects the proposals? Trump has publicly stated that he may impose trade tariffs in order to encourage Copenhagen to reconsider. In a telephone conversation last month with Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, Trump was “aggressive and confrontational”, the conversation was “fiery” and plunged the Danish Government into “crisis mode”, the Financial Times reported, citing unnamed officials.
The conversation made everyone realise that Trump really wants Greenland. Although polls show that the majority of the island’s inhabitants do not want to join the US, they would support closer cooperation with the world’s most powerful nation.
In response, Copenhagen has announced a further 14.6 billion kroner (€1.95 billion) to increase its military presence in the Arctic and North Atlantic. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Frederiksen has turned to European allies for support, meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and NATO secretary general Mark Rutte. The French even offered to send troops to Greenland, but Copenhagen refused.
Unlike Denmark, Greenland is not an EU territory but has a special status that ensures access to Community funds and allows free travel within the Community for EU citizens who are Greenlanders. The island is therefore covered by Article 42.7 of the EU Treaty, which stresses that all member states “undertake to assist and provide support” to a country that is a victim of “armed aggression against its territory”.
The EU’s Lithuanian Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius also confirmed that “we are ready to defend our member state Denmark”.
However, the support for Copenhagen was not so evident at last Wednesday’s press conference in Vilnius. Speaking after a meeting with his Greek counterpart, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Budrys said “Lithuania is not taking either side”.
“Lithuania says that we are all allies, bound by both long-standing cooperation and firm commitments to each other, and it is in that spirit that we resolve all issues that arise between us,” the minister said, expressing hope that Lithuania would not be forced to choose one side, and “all the needs will be resolved in the spirit of allies and in the spirit of international law”.
He repeated this in an interview with Politika.lt published on Thursday. “If anyone has any doubts about which side Lithuania is on, we are unequivocally on the side of international law and principles,” Budrys said, without specifying what that means.
Further reading
Echoes of Iraq war
These were just isolated statements in the silence that engulfed most European capitals. The situation can be compared to the diplomatic tension in 2003 when Lithuania faced a crisis of “dual loyalty”, says Dovilė Budrytė, a visiting researcher at the Kavolis Institute of Vytautas Magnus University.
When US President George W. Bush invaded Iraq, continental Western Europe criticised the move, while the “new” allies in Central and Eastern Europe supported him. This provoked the infamous remark by French President Jacques Chirac that the Baltic countries had “missed an opportunity to remain silent”.
“In 2025, it seems that almost the entire Europe is silent because it is not yet clear what to do about Trump’s aggressive imperialist nineteenth-century-like ambitions,” says Budrytė.
She admits that it would be dangerous and unpragmatic for Lithuania to criticise Trump loudly. “We can see how vindictive and unpredictable a leader he is. In this case, Lithuania, like other European countries, is still paralysed and does not know how to get out of this hole,” according to Budrytė.
Trump’s statements about annexing Canada, taking control of the Panama Canal, and occupying Greenland also send a very clear message to Beijing and Moscow.
“This narrative justifies great power games in the eyes of Moscow and Beijing. If you are a small country like Denmark, or the Baltic states, you take a very principled position on territorial integrity and sovereignty. This was the case with Ukraine, with Georgia, with Moldova. It would be inconsistent not to do so in this case,” Stefano Braghiroli, associate professor at the University of Tartu in Estonia, told LRT.lt.
‘Every man for himself’
Greenland’s importance has been growing for a long time. As climate change is eroding the ice caps, countries are eyeing the island’s minerals and strategic position commanding shipping lanes in the North.
Last Monday, EU diplomacy chief Kaja Kallas suggested that Europe should speak “the language of transaction” with the US president but when asked if this could mean an agreement on Greenland, she clarified that “we are not negotiating”.
“What I meant with my comment was more general. This is the language that we have understood that the new administration speaks,” Kallas said, suggesting that the EU should not underestimate its power.
Denmark’s Frederiksen also sought EU unity, saying it is essential as ever. Denmark is “a small country with strong allies”, she said, and belongs to “a strong European community where we can all face the challenges ahead of us together”.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Budrys’ statement about Lithuania not taking sides was therefore criticised as counterproductive – it would have been enough to emphasise that Greenland’s status was non-negotiable and there was no need to talk about neutrality.
“The minister’s comment appears to be an instance of ‘everyone out for themselves’ mentality which Trump’s style of engagement encourages but which hardly works for such small states in such neighbourhoods as Lithuania,” Maria Mälksoo, professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Centre for War Studies, tells LRT.lt
“So solidarity with the European allies on principal issues, such as territorial integrity and non-use of force, goes out of the window in the race for one’s own survival by the attempted pleasing of or not irritating the hegemon,” she added.
Can’t please Trump?
The US hegemon is seen as crucial for Lithuania’s security. The Suwałki Corridor is guarded by a thousand American troops in Pabradė, and NATO’s deterrence and security guarantees are as reliable as Washington’s willingness to defend its allies on the Eastern flank.
This is why Lithuania has traditionally been among the most pro-American countries in Europe, sometimes seemingly favouring Washington over the EU. For example, it is the last in the EU to block the Community cooperation agreement with Cuba, which is criticised by the US. Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also thanked Lithuania for this in a letter.
But Trump’s unpredictability means that efforts to please him may not necessarily pay off.
“It would be plausible if Trump were a credible actor. Of course, we don’t know how he will behave in the future, but we know how he has behaved. And, we can say, rather erratically. We know that he has never shown too much interest in committing himself to transatlantic ties and especially to NATO. [...] I wouldn’t put too much trust in Trump when it comes to dealmaking,” Braghiroli, of the University of Tartu, told LRT.lt.
The idea of European strategic autonomy, put forward by French President Macron back in 2019, could be a response to this danger. Written off as a fantasy and fiercely opposed by the countries of the Eastern flank, it is now on the agendas of many European countries. The Trump administration has made no secret of wanting to leave Europe’s security to the Europeans themselves.
“I would advise the EU and NATO’s Eastern Flank countries that feel threatened by Russia not to escalate the situation directly with Trump, but to think more and more about how to secure their security in a situation where the US may no longer be a reliable partner, and this is increasingly so. The best response is to invest in European unity, both in the NATO and EU contexts,” says Braghiroli.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
