Weber emphasized that even without a U.S. military takeover, NATO has suffered significant damage. The trust forming the foundation of the alliance has been largely eroded. While Weber considers a military confrontation between Europe and the United States unlikely—given its slim prospects for success from a European perspective—he stressed that the crisis nonetheless represents a serious strategic problem.
Dr. Weber evaluated a potential NATO mission in Greenland critically. While such an initiative could signal the strategic importance of Greenland, there is a simultaneous risk that the operation would ultimately fall under U.S. command, which would be counterproductive for European interests.
Weber also downplayed the threat posed by China and Russia, as invoked by Trump. In his assessment, this represents a politically motivated fantasy of the U.S. president. In reality, the United States has neglected developments in the Arctic and significantly reduced its military presence in Greenland. Nothing prevents them from restoring this presence.
Nonetheless, Trump’s interest in Greenland is real and is driven less by geopolitical threat assessments than by economic and strategic motives. The region’s natural resources and the desire for full dominance within its sphere of influence are the driving factors.
In conclusion, Dr. Weber advocated for a clear and pragmatic European stance: Europe must recognize Greenland’s significance and develop its own strategies without falling into counterproductive dependencies on the United States. Only in this way can the balance between cooperation and independent capacity for action be maintained.