Read the Rome Declaration here | Don't forget to visit our friends over at /r/ActEuropa!

Europe’s leaders had plenty of warnings about what the U.S. president’s second term might mean, but amid much eye-rolling, hand-wringing and wishful thinking, they failed to agree on a plan.

Who would ever have imagined we’d find ourselves in circumstances that would prompt France to offer Denmark military support, hoping to deter threats from a belligerent United States president!

Just a few shock-and-awe days into what will almost certainly be an era-shattering second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has cast us back to the future; to an era of threats and brute force, with no established international law to try and keep interstate aggression in check or encourage resolution through diplomacy.

It was only three years ago that the world was left aghast by Russia’s full-scale invasion of a neighboring sovereign nation. But now, it seems Trump, the leader of the free world, and Russian President Vladimir Putin are of the same mind: Might makes right — and it has prerogatives too.

Europe had plenty of warnings about what a second Trump term might entail. But amid much eye-rolling, hand-wringing and wishful thinking, it failed to put a plan in place that would minimize the impact of a man who seems to relish the prospect of emulating former U.S. President William McKinley.

America’s 25th president also imposed protective tariffs and expanded U.S. territory, gaining control of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines during his time in office. And in a nod to his kindred political spirit, Trump lauded McKinley in his inauguration address, praising his predecessor for paving the way for the Panama Canal. “We’re taking it back,” Trump said.

He later signed an executive order reversing former President Barack Obama’s decision to rename North America’s highest peak by its ancient name “Denali,” and restoring it as Mount McKinley.

So, what lessons should America’s Western allies draw from the first few days of Trump’s reintroduction of the law of the jungle?

First, of course, the obvious one: The next four years are going to be torrid for them.

Trump 2.0 is a disorienting step change from the president’s first term — more triumphalist, confident and determined to ignore guardrails; more revolutionary in how it sets about implementing the “America First” agenda. Disassembling what has gone before is the chosen strategy for what is set to be a massive realignment both at home and abroad, and the howls of disapproval from critics will merely embolden an administration that sees protest as evidence it’s on the right track.

The Trump doctrine pursued at home or abroad is cut from the same cloth. What the president wants, the president should get without congressional constraint or legal quibble — hence, the arbitrary and likely illegal suspension of foreign aid, abrupt freezing of federal assistance programs and loans, and the mass firing of civil servants, including inspectors general. The ambition is to replace a seemingly professional civil service — at least at the higher ranks — with an enlarged spoils system instead.

Internationally, whether Trump would actually invade Greenland is, to some extent, beside the point. But he’s serious about acquiring the island, declining to rule out an invasion and threatening a fellow NATO member. And in Trump 2.0, it’s okay to try and poach a territory using military threats or crushing tariffs to do so.

Too often, Trump has been mischaracterized an isolationist — he’s not. At heart he’s always been a mercantilist, and his sudden expansionism is wrapped up with his ambition to augment U.S. economic power. Greenland has enormous untapped mineral wealth, and 40 percent of U.S. seaborne container traffic plies the Panama Canal.

This brings us to the second lesson for America’s Western allies: Their options are stark, and it’s going to cost cash-strapped Europe one way or another. The bloc has to start looking after itself — America is no longer paying for its defense in the way it has before, and Trump’s mercantilism will see him do everything he can to ensure the U.S. increases its wealth by selling more than it buys from other nations.

Muddling through and thinking everything will reset in four years’ time isn’t going to cut it. There’s scant common ground between the European establishment and the powers that be in Washington now. The first administration’s transatlanticists like Mike Pompeo, James Mattis and H.R. McMaster are long gone. Rather than show at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting to get the new transatlantic relationship off on the right foot, new Secretary of State Marco Rubio simply placed a call. There’s no one in Washington who can or wants to moderate Trump.

In response, Europe could just roll over and do Trump’s bidding. But it would then have to endure without demur his disorienting goading and needling, likely followed by ever bigger demands. It would certainly have to follow through on the admittedly justified U.S. demand to dramatically boost defense expenditure and shoulder a much fairer burden for the West’s defense.

In this scenario, the bloc should also probably copy Saudi Arabia and purchase more weapons systems rather than focus on developing its own defense industries. Taking this route, Europe would have to fully choose between Trump and China — no more fence-sitting or trying to have it both ways in the name of growth.

Alternatively, however, the European Union could brace against the hurricane and become as coldly and determinedly transactional as Trump. Go tit-for-tat when the inevitable tariffs are imposed and get serious about strategic autonomy.

Europe does have some economic leverage of its own — if it’s steadfast enough to apply it. As Rym Momtaz of Carnegie Europe highlighted: “EU countries represented 45 percent of all foreign direct investment pouring into the United States in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis — amounting to $2.4 trillion. European private savings accounts and businesses invest three times as much in the United States as the next region does. This not only creates and sustains millions of U.S. jobs but also contributes to fueling America’s innovation and industrial edge in its competition with China.”

Moreover, Europe is responsible for buying 50 percent of all U.S. liquefied natural gas exports and 28 percent of all U.S. natural gas exports. From 2019 to 2023, it received more than a quarter of U.S. arms exports — an uptick from 11 percent between 2014 and 2018, and it buys 17 percent of U.S. exports overall. American exporters would thus howl if they started facing retaliatory tariffs. (Interestingly, McKinley — who was dubbed the “Napoleon of Protection” — changed his mind about tariffs late into in his second term, and announced support for reciprocal trade treaties the day before his death.)

But beyond that, going toe-to-toe with Trump would require a total rethink about geopolitics and Europe’s place in the world. It would require refashioning the transatlantic relationship, while Washington actively seeks to split the bloc by approaching its members on a bilateral basis and encouraging ideological allies on the continent — like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico — to disrupt EU unity.

Europe’s leaders have much to blame themselves for. They wasted time and talked a big game while doing little to Trump-proof the bloc. They consigned their nightmare scenario of his return to the back of their minds rather than prepare for it, and their indecision has compounded the failure to expand the bloc’s military forces and to stop treating the transatlantic relationship like an à la carte menu — picking and choosing delicacies without paying the full tab.

The EU should have grown up a long time ago — now it may be forced to.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-europe-should-have-grown-up-a-long-time-ago/

The worst-case scenario has been confirmed these past few weeks; Trump and his administration want Greenland. The official reason is because of “the importance of the strategic security of the far-north and the Northwest Passage”. The real reason is that Trump wants to be a land-gaining president and cement himself as a major expander of the US, it’s just expansionism.

Earlier he entertained this idea with Canada and the Panama Canal, but he gave up on those because it’s too difficult and complicated. Greenland is the one he settled on because he 1) offered to buy it once (and got embarrassed politically), and 2) it’s sparsely populated and wouldn’t be difficult for the US to assimilate.

The bad news is that Trump is stupid enough to do it. The good news is that he’s only president for 4 years and he’s the only guy in American Politics who is hell-bent on this. Even people in his administration like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz who claim to support it clearly don’t, they just don’t want to get fired.

It’s obvious that Denmark can’t beat the US militarily. But they can stop the US from invading. Here’s the best steps they could take to prevent the worst from passing:

Wait for something else to happen

One of the consistent features about Trump is that he tends to pick hills to fight on, and then abandon them with any major resistance. Like his recent birthright executive order being overturned by a judge. He pretty much completely gave up on that. Another was his recent “funding freeze” of core governmental functions.

In a few months, there’s a good chance that he’s pre-occupied with something else and he doesn’t have the time to think about Greenland, or he just doesn’t care as much anymore.

This is probably what’s going to end up happening.

Pretend to be interested in negotiation, wait Trump out

If Trump refuses to back off or gets more aggressive, then Danish party leaders need to get more creative. The Danish government needs to talk to the Americans like they’re serious about giving them Greenland, for a price. Trump is only in office for 4 years, so the Danes only need to string him along for that long.

Denmark could propose conditions that the US wouldn’t accept, like a land swap with the US Virgin Islands, or indefinite exclusive resource extraction rights on Greenland. Trump obviously won’t take this, but it gives the Danes an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and renegotiate among themselves, which kills time.

Put on a show in Danish government. Have random Danish parliamentarians propose bills that give Greenland to the US, to be shot town in committee. Make it look like there’s serious progress happening, and that it’s only a matter of time before a good deal is produced.

Make it a domestic Election issue, where the ruling party makes it clear to Trump that they can’t hand Greenland over because the Danish Elections are on 31/10/26, and they don’t want to lose in a landslide. In a few days after, the American midterm election happens and the Democrats will very likely win the House, or the House + Senate. If that happens, Trump’s ability to take over Greenland drops a lot.

If Denmark needs to in order to placate Trump, they could pass a bill that proposes a parliamentarian vote on a Greenland deal with the US; after a non-binding referendum on Greenland (non-binding to give the bill an excuse to go forward).

If Denmark successfully waits Trump out, the Danish government can’t admit they played Trump, but they must not pursue any more of this facade once Trump is gone so the next president doesn’t think that Denmark is serious about this.

Build backing among EU member states, and threaten a cooling of relations with the US if they invade Greenland. Make it not worth it

I saw one of the finest pieces of European solidarity recently, and its many European countries (like France) coming to Denmark’s defense. Denmark needs to build an alliance among EU and NATO allies. They need to make it clear that if the US invades a European nation, the EU will become friendlier with China. The European Union has already fired a few warning shots on this, and US intelligence probably takes it very seriously.

Unfortunately Trump doesn’t, and if he feels members of his administration are blocking his progress, he could just remove them. Denmark needs Trump to think that waiting Denmark out is the best path that gives him Greenland and a continued alliance with the EU.

Build strong relationships with the Democratic Party and future Republican superstars

American politics are entirely determined by domestic forces and internal political alliances. If the Danish government establishes itself as a Democratic Party ally and a supporter of post-Trump republicans, there’s no real pro-invasion force in American politics after Trump.

There’s good ways to do this. Have Danish left-wing politicians endorse popular democrats who will probably win, and Danish right-wing politicians do the same with potential post-Trump republicans. The Danish government also needs to start “lobbying” (bribing) politicians more. Israel and Egypt were exempt from Trump’s foreign aid freeze, that’s because they spend serious money bribing American politicians. Denmark needs to start doing the same.

If a Democrat wins the 2028 election and Trump invades during his Lame Duck period, offer a reset of relations if the Democrat pulls out after they’re inaugurated

This is a last ditch effort. Offering total forgiveness for the next administration if they pull out of Greenland, and giving them some concessions (mining rights, more NATO presence in Greenland, higher NATO spending, etc). If Denmark does this and the EU makes it clear that their red lines are serious, there’s a good chance the next president pulls out. Especially if it’s an opportunity to make the GOP look bad, because this invasion threat is objectively unpopular with Americans.

—————

This is realistically the best chance Denmark has of keeping Denmark. They can’t beat the US in conventional warfare or convince Trump to change his mind. But they can wait him out.

I've seen a lot of hype lately in this sub, about how we should use services made in Europe, following this idea I decided to try Mistral and I have to say it was a very good surprise, I was just about to start paying for Chatgpt plus, due the Canvas mode, it is very useful, but Mistral has a free Canvas Mode, so now I am using Mistral as my main AI assistant, I am not in a position to assert whether is better or worse than Chatgpt or Deepseek, but for my personal things, it has proven useful enough.

I use AI Canvas modes for personal accounting.

Why do you think nobody is talking about Mistral? Given my experience, I can say that is really not bad at all.

I only know about the pound as I wasn't too politically aware at the time and didn't vote, I'll see people's main reason for not wanting to rejoin be we wouldn't have our benefits but I'd trade the pound for a place in the EU so what are the others?

(if you need English - scroll down)

Encore une autre question linguistique sur l’UE. Comme toujours, concernant la langue(s) commune(s) de l’Union. Au fur et à mesure que nous nous rapprochons de la fédéralisation, ou du moins plus d’intégration et d’unité, il doit y avoir une solution à ce problème parce que ce que nous avons maintenant n’est qu’un gâchis qui ne contribue pas bien à nos compétences en communication. Permettez-moi d’aller droit au but - l’anglais NE DEVRAIT PAS être la langue de l’UE. Pourquoi? Il est seulement (de sorte) originaire d’Irlande et de Malte et maintenant, une fois le Royaume-Uni parti et l’influence américaine diminuant, il devient plus une langue étrangère pour l’UE. Il restera bien sûr officiel dans les 24 langues que nous avons, mais il ne devrait PAS être 1 des langues de travail et certainement pas la langue principale. Il y a deux langues dans l’UE qui ont une nette majorité sur les autres - le français et l’allemand. Ce sont aussi les langues de plusieurs États membres, elles sont déjà apprises et parlées en dehors de leurs zones de langue maternelle et ce sont les langues des 2 principaux États membres de l’UE qui ont le plus d’influence dans l’union. Idéalement, ces deux langues seraient les langues communes de l’UE, ce qui signifie que chaque citoyen de l’UE devrait parler au moins une d’entre elles avec une parfaite maîtrise et, idéalement, avoir au moins une certaine connaissance de l’autre. En outre, la langue locale/native resterait bien sûr la principale dans sa région respective. Les personnes dont la langue maternelle est le français ou l’allemand doivent parler couramment l’une de l’autre, ce qui leur permet d’être bilingues. L’anglais devrait également être appris dans une certaine mesure, étant donné qu’il s’agit d’une langue mondiale mais qu’elle n’a pas à être parfaite ni obligatoire pour les Européens de parler/connaître. Je sais que beaucoup de gens diraient maintenant qu’il n’y a pas de problème linguistique, parlons anglais et oublions-le. Mais pourquoi parlerions-nous l’anglais si nous avons autant de langues à nous ? Nos propres langues locales qui sont riches, utiles et connues. Pourquoi utiliser quelque chose de plus étranger?
Que pensez-vous de ça ?

---

Wieder eine sprachliche Frage zur EU. Wie immer, zur gemeinsamen Sprache(n) der Union. Wenn wir uns der Föderalisierung immer näher kommen, oder zumindest mehr Integration und Einheit, muss es eine Lösung für dieses Problem geben, denn was wir jetzt haben ist nur ein Durcheinander, das nicht gut zu unseren Kommunikationsfähigkeiten beiträgt. Lassen Sie mich direkt zum Punkt kommen - Englisch SOLLTE NICHT die Lingua Franca der EU sein. Warum sollte es das sein? Es ist nur in Irland und Malta heimisch, und jetzt, nachdem Großbritannien weg ist und der US-Einfluss kleiner wird, wird es für die EU immer mehr zu einer Fremdsprache. Natürlich wird es in den 24 Sprachen, die wir haben, offiziell bleiben, aber es SOLLTE NICHT 1 der Arbeitssprachen sein und kann sicherlich nicht die Hauptsprache der Union sein. Es gibt zwei Sprachen in der EU, die eine deutliche Mehrheit haben - Französisch und Deutsch. Sie sind auch die Sprachen mehrerer Mitgliedsstaaten, sie werden bereits außerhalb ihrer Muttersprachengebiete gelernt und gesprochen und sie sind die Sprachen von zwei großen EU-Mitgliedsstaaten, die den größten Einfluss in der Union haben. Im Idealfall wären diese beiden die gemeinsamen Sprachen der EU, d. h., jeder EU-Bürger sollte mindestens eine von ihnen fließend sprechen und im Idealfall zumindest einige Kenntnisse über die andere haben. Zusätzlich würde die lokale/native Sprache natürlich die Hauptsprache in ihrer jeweiligen Region bleiben. Personen, die entweder Französisch oder Deutsch als ihre Muttersprache haben, müssen das andere fließend sprechen und somit zweisprachig sein. Englisch sollte auch in gewissem Maße gelernt werden, da es eine Weltsprache ist, aber es muss nicht perfekt sein oder für die Europäer obligatorisch zu sprechen/ zu wissen. Ich weiß, dass viele Leute jetzt sagen würden, dass es kein sprachliches Problem gibt, lass uns einfach englisch sprechen und vergessen. Aber warum sollten wir Englisch sprechen, wenn wir so viel eigene Sprachkenntnisse haben? Unsere eigenen lokalen Sprachen, die reich, nützlich und bekannt sind. Warum etwas verwenden, das mehr fremd ist?
Was haltet ihr davon?

---

Yet again another linguistics question about the EU. As always, concerning the common language(s) of the Union. As we move closer and closer to federalisation, or at least more integration and unity, there has to be a solution to this problem because what we have now is just a mess which doesn't contribute well to our communication skills. Let me get straight to the point - English SHOULD NOT be the Lingua Franca of the EU. Why would it be? Its only (somewhat) native to Ireland and Malta and now, once UK is gone and US influence is getting smaller, its becoming more of a foreign language for the EU. It will, of course, stay official in those 24 languages we have, but it SHOULD NOT be 1 of the working languages and surely can't be the main language of the union. There are 2 languages in the EU which have a clear majority over others - French and German. They are also the languages of multiple member states, they are already learnt and spoken outside their native speaking areas and they are the languages of 2 main EU member states who hold the most influence in the union. Ideally, these 2 would be the common languages of the EU, meaning that every EU citizen should speak at least 1 of them fully fluently and ideally have at least some knowledge of the other one. In addition, local/native language would of course stay the main in its respective region. People who have either French or German as their native language must speak the other one fluently, thus being bilingual. English should also be learnt to a certain extent considering that its a world language but it doesn't have to be perfect nor obligatory for Europeans to speak/know. I know that many people would now say that there is no linguistic problem, let's just speak English and forget about it. But why would we speak English if we have so much linguistics of our own? Our own local languages that are rich, useful and known. Why use something that is more foreign?
What do you guys think about this?

Coen (aka Sn0r) and his friends have created “Forum Gotterfunken”, a large network of EU-focused Reddit groups with over 100,000 followers. In subreddits like r/EuropeanArmy, r/europeanunion, and r/EuropeanCulture, they use bots to share curated news from reputable sources, making EU news more accessible. These spaces also spark lively debates about the EU.

Beyond managing the subreddits, they host podcasts on their Discord server to discuss current issues. This week, they’ll join our Zoom session to explore “European Media in a Divided World”. Join us to listen, learn, share your thoughts, and ask questions.

📅 Tuesday, 27 January, 19:00 CET on Zoom | 6pm Ireland, Portugal | 8pm Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania

👉Sign up for your Zoom link here: https://meeteu.eu/registration

Hello, as active eurofed i want our idea to spread around the europe and gain more popularity to bring us closer to federal Europe. I live in Slovakia, country with eurosceptic government and big part of the population, yet i want to gather some people (probably 4-5) and make group irl to: make posters, internet content, join protests and meetings, share information etc.

Do you think it makes sence? Is it worth it in your opinion? What that group could also do? I'd like to hear some ideas and answers so feel free to suggest one! Thanks!

We don't get paid enough for the control and influence we let the US have over our continent. I say we book a come to a deal with Putin over Ukraine. They withdraw to some extent, we lift sanctions, buy a bunch of gas from them. Unless Trumpy has something more to offer. Business is business ey?

My fellow Europeans, I plead you take a few minutes of your day to read the following:

It's time for everyone, both left and right to start compromising.
America has been a close partner to Europe in many ways, but its time as a reliable partner has ended.
I am not talking Trump necessarily, I am talking as a whole.
In my eyes, Trump is merely the symptom to some much bigger sickness that has engulfed America, and threatens to engulf Europe.
A person like Trump does not get elected unless there is massive systematic failure in a countrys institutions.
America has again shown its true colours, they have no interest in anything except being the worlds sole superpower who can dictate anyone at will.
Latin America learnt this the hard way, and they surely tried to warn everyone, but nobody listened, and now it seems our time has come.
The sovereign soil of an European country is under threat by America.
Make no mistake, Russian expansionism is a threat, American expansionism is a looming disaster.
They WILL grab and take and the trust we had means nothing.

Everyone must admit to their mistakes, as an example:
The left must admit that the demographic disaster they have caused in Europe by taking in millions of people with no education, cultural, religious or societal ties to Europe has, for many, brought on irreparable damage in the trust of the politics of the EU. This is a sensitive issue but it is extremely important. High trust societies take decades to build up but in a few short moments it can all come crashing down.

The right must admit to their mistakes, as an example:
The EU has made Europe much stronger.
Populism is currently trying to undermine the EU in every way and distrust in the EU is rising.
70 years of trade agreements, cooperation, laws, partnerships and mutual funding disappearing will plunge Europe into decades of weakness with big hungry eyes watching trying to exploit just that.
Dismantling the EU would be an absolute disaster.

The next decades will be difficult but Europe MUST unite. We MUST accept compromises.
If we do not, we will never get along, we will never become strong and we will be picked apart piece by piece by states stronger than our individuals. But together we have a massive wealthy population with economic, production and industrial centers all over the continent and if invested in, we can be a close contender defence industry of the USA.

Please try to bring an open mind.
It is a dangerous time to be an European.
Hungry eyes are watching.