格陵兰“局势推演”：不“牺牲”丹麦主权的交易方案？可能性越来越小

Core Viewpoint - The likelihood of reaching an agreement regarding Greenland that satisfies Trump's strategic goals while respecting Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty is rapidly decreasing [1] Group 1: Geopolitical Dynamics - The Greenland issue is evolving from a diplomatic negotiation to a high-intensity geopolitical confrontation centered on tariffs, security, and institutional boundaries [1] - Trump's potential push for a significant shift in the Greenland situation before the midterm elections in November indicates that the coming months will be a critical window [1] Group 2: Economic Pressure and Negotiation Changes - The negotiation logic has shifted from diplomatic pressure to economic coercion, with tariffs being explicitly used as a core tool to alter European decision-making incentives [2] - The imposition of tariffs on goods from NATO member countries that provide military or security resources to Greenland signifies a broader strategy to reassess the costs of European security cooperation [2] Group 3: Sovereignty and Compromise Challenges - The concept of a "transaction without sacrificing sovereignty" is increasingly seen as structurally failing, moving away from being a baseline scenario to a diminishing realistic option [3] Group 4: Historical Precedents and Concerns - Historical examples of U.S. territorial expansion illustrate a consistent pattern of economic pressure leading to political intervention, raising concerns about similar tactics being employed in the current context [4][6] Group 5: U.S. Military and Strategic Objectives - Trump's objectives have shifted from "participation" to "control," seeking not just greater usage rights but a long-term control that undermines European influence and excludes Russia [5] - The negotiation has been framed in a binary manner, with the term "complete purchase" negating any middle ground, making compromises appear insufficient [5] Group 6: European Response and Options - The EU has publicly stated its commitment to maintaining Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty, but there is a significant gap between statements and actual execution [8] - While the EU theoretically has various tools to respond if an acceptable agreement is not reached, the real challenge lies in its unity, political will, and capacity to withstand a full economic confrontation with the U.S. [8] Group 7: Institutional Implications - If the U.S. were to take military action in Greenland, Europe would likely be unable to respond with equivalent military force, leading to a reassessment of its security dependence on the U.S. and the foundational structures of NATO [9] - The essence of the Greenland issue has shifted from a negotiation of tactics to a pressure test concerning sovereignty, control, and institutional boundaries, indicating that the geopolitical risks are becoming a structural variable that needs to be priced in [9]