This Article is published in the context of JEF Europe’s Democracy Under Pressure (DUP) Action Week
In the first week of March, I had an opportunity to engage myself in a conversation with media and communication experts, Dr. Zahera Harb from the City Saint George’s University and Steve Hill from the University of Westminster.
When I mentioned of the ongoing childish decisions of President Trump which dominates international news. Both scholars blatantly criticized numerous aspects of the President Trump’s renewed attempt to acquire Greenland, and his controversial involvement in brokering a Ukraine peace deal. Dr. Harb specifically highlighted the aspect that how one that the US is more focused on backroom deals and coercion than on genuine diplomatic resolution. I particularly fell for his intersection of these steps with the looming threats to independent press and democratic governance policies of the European Union. Mr. Steve Hill, on the other hand, went in an ethical journalistic manner stating what these moves signified for Europe, and more importantly, how they exposed the continent’s overreliance on the United States. But, the key takeaway for a budding journalist and human rights activist, like me, was a shift in the narratives of experts regarding the US policies and its implications for a democratic society.
As the discussion wrapped up, I opened my laptop, eager to browse through the media coverage of both issues. What I found was predictable but disheartening. American outlets framed the Greenland proposal as part of a broader security strategy, avoiding outright criticism of its imperialistic undertones. Even more concerning was the reporting on Ukraine—articles focused on how Trump’s deal could “end the war” rather than scrutinizing the means by which he sought to achieve it. European media, in turn, largely followed suit, reluctant to criticize the U.S. too openly. And there I realized ‘The US might be guardian of the Galaxy, but on the Hollywood screens’.
The Greenland Gambit: Interference in the European Sovereignty and International Law
Soon after offering a status of the US state to Canada, in early 2025, President Trump reignited his ambition to acquire Greenland, a self-governing territory under Danish sovereignty. He framed this pursuit as a strategic move to bolster U.S. national security. This proposal was met with swift and firm rejection from Danish officials, who viewed it as an affront to their sovereignty and a relic of colonial-era thinking. But it wouldn’t be the first time a President has sought to buy Arctic land from another country. Back in 1946, officials offered Denmark $100 million in gold bars for the world’s largest island, a Danish autonomous territory. U.S. officials at the time thought it was a “military necessity.”
Things have changed significantly in the last two decades, and the initiation plan of NATO also seems true. When the initial cynical summary of NATO “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” was explained by its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, no one notice that the same alliance would be used by America for strengthening its imperial order globally. Thus the frustrated words of Mr. Steve "The Greenland case is a reflection of a deeper issue—American exceptionalism. The U.S. continues to behave as if global sovereignty is an open market, where nations can be bought, influenced, or subdued at will” truly reflects the saga.
The European Union can no longer afford to avoid a genuine geostrategic review of its transatlantic relations, its commitment in the Arctic and its involvement with its OCTs in general and Greenland in particular. What is striking about rereading the European Union’s roadmaps is that, particularly with regard to the European Arctic, is that they are rather insipid and largely disconnected from political and geopolitical issues. The European Union has two different cards to play. First, it must develop cohesive foreign policy strategies that reflect European values and interests, reducing reliance on external powers for security and diplomatic initiatives. Secondly, the investment in the island must be significantly increased, in a way that meets the needs and development aspirations of the Greenlandic population.
Ukraine: Europe’s “Peace” or America’s Capitulation?
Toxic masculinity is a version of masculinity that discourages empathy, expresses strength through dominance, normalizes violence against women and associates leadership with white patriarchy. It devalues behaviors considered to be “feminine” and suggests that the way to earn others’ respect is to accrue power and status. In Ukraine, the cost of dependence cuts deeper and resonates the same toxic approach of masculinity. American approach of mediating the Ukraine-Russia conflict raised alarms across Europe. After news broke about the phone call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the EU’s chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, labeled recent US moves “appeasement,” and condemned Europe’s (and Ukraine’s) exclusion from any negotiations with Russia. The existential differences between Ukraine and Russia that plagued the Minsk agreements remain today. Ukraine has demonstrated its resolve to defend its sovereignty, while Russia’s invasion in 2022 testifies to its determination to squash Ukrainian resolve. The timing of the attack so close to the seventh anniversary of Minsk-2 adds grim emphasis to that point.
Now when the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Slate’s Kaplan compared Trump to a mafia don. And when I asked the same question from one of my Ukrainian colleagues, she echoed: Ukrainians feel betrayed. Europe sold us out to placate Trump”. The EU’s role in this effort is difficult. Decisions made at the EU level on foreign and security policy are made with unanimity. That will be a challenge, especially when quick action is required, while countries like Hungary under Trump ally Viktor Orbán play spoiler or the regular consultative process leads to wasted time. But the EU has a role to play. It can push members to provide more assistance, especially military assistance, to Ukraine.
The State of Independent Journalism in Freefall: Europe’s Media Echoes American Toxins
Europe’s reliance on the U.S. has not only impacted geopolitical dynamics but also had repercussions on press freedom within the continent. The U.S. administration’s budget cuts led to the termination of funding for Radio Free Europe (RFE) and Radio Liberty, outlets that have been instrumental in promoting democratic values and providing unbiased news to Eastern European countries since the Cold War era. Reacting to the US decision, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavskì said on X that “from Belarus to Iran, from Russia to Afghanistan, Radio Free Europe and Voice of America remain among the few free sources of information for those living in oppression”. “It is in our interest not to have totalitarian regimes blossoming around us,” he reiterated.
Radio Free Europe’s struggle for survival is not unique. Media outlets across Europe are in troubled waters - not only in terms of funding, but also of the threat to their independence posed by increasing concentration of ownership and government influence, as well as hostile working conditions for journalists. A report examining the state of the rule of law in the European Union published by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe published this year found continuing threats to media freedom throughout the Union. Many governments maintain direct influence in choosing the leadership of national regulatory bodies, subverting their independence and impartiality, the report said. Spain, however, in those regard stands high. I took a notable step to approve a law that aims to create a media registry to identify media owners and the advertising they receive. It promises to increase institutional transparency and is committed to combating disinformation with legal reforms. While looking into the ongoing developments, one should ask itself as the EU debates whether to step in to save RFE/RL: can Europe protect independent journalism in an era of rising authoritarian influence and economic uncertainty? These developments underscore the imperative for Europe to reassess its dependency on the U.S. and strengthen its own democratic institutions and media landscape.
Closing my laptop, I leaned back, reflecting on the conversation and my research. The Greenland and Ukraine episodes were just the latest in a series of events exposing Europe’s misplaced trust in the United States. From political interference to media influence, from economic coercion to diplomatic sidelining, the pattern was clear. However, the answer lies beyond those walls—in newsrooms that prioritize integrity over speed, in leaders who value sovereignty over subservience, and in citizens who demand better.
Follow the comments:
|
