Analysis of: EU affirms ‘principles of national sovereignty’ in cautious response to Trump Greenland threats – Europe live
The Guardian | January 5, 2026
The European response to US military intervention in Venezuela and Trump's renewed threats against Greenland reveals a fundamental crisis in the post-WWII international order, exposing how principles of sovereignty and international law bend before the realities of imperial power and capital accumulation. European leaders find themselves caught between their rhetorical commitment to rules-based order and their material dependence on US military and economic support, particularly regarding Ukraine. This contradiction has produced what German Green politician Franziska Brantner accurately termed a return to 'the imperialism playbook'—where powerful states openly pursue territorial and resource acquisition through force while weaker allies must choose between principled opposition and pragmatic accommodation. The class character of this crisis becomes apparent when examining who benefits from the erosion of international norms. Trump's explicit statement about seizing Venezuela's oil reserves and his assertion that 'the European Union needs us to have' Greenland reveals the naked resource extraction logic underlying these geopolitical maneuvers. European political elites—representing predominantly capitalist class interests—have calculated that maintaining access to US markets, military protection, and support for Ukraine outweighs any commitment to the legal frameworks they publicly champion. This represents a strategic retreat by European capital from the liberal internationalist project when it conflicts with immediate material interests. The article documents a remarkable moment of ideological fracture within the Western alliance, as figures from Merz to Macron scramble to avoid condemning clear violations of international law while maintaining democratic legitimacy at home. The opposition criticism from German Social Democrats and Greens, while notable, remains constrained within acceptable parameters—critiquing the method while accepting the broader framework of Western alignment. Poland's Tusk captures the anxiety of European elites precisely: unity is necessary for survival, but unity under what principles and serving whose interests remains deliberately unexamined.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US ruling class (represented by Trump administration), European political elites and governing parties, European opposition parties (Greens, SPD), Ukrainian state leadership, Venezuelan people (mentioned as beneficiaries of 'transition'), Greenlandic and Danish populations, Hungarian ruling class (Orbán's Fidesz), International legal scholars and institutions
Beneficiaries: US energy corporations seeking Venezuelan oil, US military-industrial complex, European governing parties maintaining US alliance, Capital interests requiring stable US-EU relations, Right-wing populist leaders (Meloni, Orbán) gaining legitimacy through US alignment
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan working class subject to foreign intervention, Greenlandic people facing external pressure on self-determination, European workers whose governments prioritize alliance over principles, Global South populations observing selective application of international law, Ukrainian civilians enduring continued warfare
The article reveals a clear hierarchy where US imperial interests dominate, European powers occupy a subordinate but complicit position, and smaller nations (Denmark, Greenland, Venezuela) face direct pressure. European elites demonstrate their class solidarity with US capital by refusing to apply the same legal standards to Washington that they would to adversaries. The internal European dynamic shows governing parties suppressing principled criticism from coalition partners and opposition, maintaining elite consensus despite democratic pressures.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Venezuelan oil reserves explicitly targeted by US, Greenland's strategic mineral resources and geographic position, European dependence on US military spending and NATO infrastructure, Energy market implications noted by Orbán, Ukraine reconstruction investment opportunities mentioned via Freeland appointment, Trade relations underlying European reluctance to criticize US
The crisis centers on control over strategic resources—Venezuelan petroleum and Greenland's Arctic position and minerals. European capital finds itself in a dependent relationship with US hegemony, requiring American military protection and market access while surrendering autonomous foreign policy capacity. The appointment of Canada's Freeland as Ukraine's economic adviser signals the integration of post-war reconstruction into Western capital accumulation strategies.
Resources at Stake: Venezuelan oil industry (world's largest proven reserves), Greenland rare earth minerals and strategic Arctic location, European energy security, Ukrainian reconstruction contracts and resources, Global shipping routes and military positioning
Historical Context
Precedents: 1989 US invasion of Panama and capture of Noriega, 19th century Monroe Doctrine and US hemispheric dominance, Historical European colonialism in the Americas, Post-WWII establishment of rules-based international order, 2003 Iraq invasion and WMD justifications, Cold War interventions in Latin America
This moment represents a potential terminal crisis for the liberal international order constructed after 1945, which always contained the contradiction of being enforced selectively by the very powers it supposedly constrained. The explicit return to 'great power' logic—what Brantner calls the 'law of the jungle'—reflects the declining utility of multilateral institutions for dominant capitalist powers. SPD's Repasi correctly identifies this as a 'return to the 19th century,' when imperial powers openly carved up the globe. The difference now is that this occurs after decades of rhetoric about universal human rights and international law, exposing these frameworks as instruments rather than constraints on imperial power.
Contradictions
Primary: European ruling classes cannot simultaneously maintain their legitimacy as defenders of international law and rules-based order while materially depending on and accommodating US violations of those same principles. This contradiction between ideological justification and material practice is becoming unsustainable.
Secondary: NATO as 'defensive alliance' contradicts member state engaging in offensive military operations, EU commitment to sovereignty principles versus silence on US threats to EU-associated territory (Greenland), European criticism of Russian territorial aggression versus accommodation of US territorial ambitions, Democratic legitimacy of European governments versus elite consensus suppressing popular criticism, Orbán's claimed EU commitment versus his alignment with authoritarian international network
These contradictions are likely to intensify rather than resolve peacefully. European elites will continue attempting ideological management—separating 'bad dictator removal' from 'illegal intervention'—but this becomes increasingly difficult as US demands escalate (Greenland, Panama Canal). The working classes of Europe may increasingly recognize the hollowness of 'rules-based order' rhetoric, potentially opening space for either genuine anti-imperialist politics or right-wing nationalism that at least acknowledges power realities honestly.
Global Interconnections
This European crisis is inseparable from the broader reconfiguration of global capitalism in the 2020s. The US pivot toward explicit resource extraction imperialism—whether Venezuelan oil or Arctic minerals—reflects declining American productive capacity relative to rising powers and the consequent turn toward more direct forms of accumulation. European subordination demonstrates how even advanced capitalist states can be reduced to dependency positions within imperial hierarchies when their military and technological autonomy erodes. The Ukraine situation functions as leverage, binding European policy to US preferences through manufactured dependence on American security guarantees. The Global South is watching this moment carefully. The selective application of international law—condemning Russian aggression while excusing American intervention—further delegitimizes Western-led institutions and accelerates multipolarity. China and other rising powers can point to this hypocrisy to justify their own regional assertions, creating a cascade effect that may ultimately harm smaller nations caught between competing imperial blocs. The 'rules-based order' reveals itself as rules for subordinate powers, with the rule-makers exempt.
Conclusion
This moment marks a qualitative shift in global power relations with significant implications for international working-class solidarity. As European elites demonstrate their willingness to abandon legal and moral principles when US capital demands it, the ideological mystification of 'Western values' becomes harder to maintain. Workers in Europe, the Americas, and globally face a choice: accept a return to naked great-power competition where their lives and livelihoods are pawns in resource struggles, or build genuinely internationalist movements that reject both the hypocritical 'rules-based order' and the emerging might-makes-right alternative. The contradiction between democratic legitimacy and elite accommodation of imperialism creates openings for class-conscious politics—but also for nationalist demagogues who offer false solutions. The coming period will test whether progressive forces can articulate an alternative that speaks to material interests while maintaining principled anti-imperialism.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 94%