Putin’s dream gift?
On January 17, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump escalated tensions with America’s closest allies by announcing a series of retaliatory tariffs on eight European countries, explicitly linked to opposition over Greenland.
The move threatens a significant rupture in transatlantic relations and further complicates global geopolitics at a moment already defined by Russia’s war on Ukraine and a wider shift in the balance of power.
Trump declared a 10 per cent tariff on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland, set to begin on February 1, 2026, with a rise to 25 per cent on June 1 should European governments continue to reject U.S. demands regarding Greenland. EU leaders and NATO allies were quick to condemn the move as destabilising, warning that it risks weakening alliance cohesion at a critical moment.
Tariffs on European allies: Who and why
The countries targeted are:
- Denmark
- Norway
- Sweden
- France
- Germany
- United Kingdom
- The Netherlands
- Finland
The White House has framed the tariffs as a matter of national security, arguing that these states backed Denmark’s rejection of U.S. efforts to purchase, or effectively control, Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory with strategic Arctic significance.
That justification has proven deeply controversial. NATO allies have stressed that their presence in Greenland, and their support for Danish sovereignty, were intended to strengthen collective Arctic defence rather than undermine U.S. security. This represents the first major fault line in Trump’s latest rationale. Rather than isolating Denmark, Europe’s response has instead united transatlantic partners against what EU officials have described as coercive economic warfare.
Transatlantic strains and the ‘Power Shift’ narrative
The tariff confrontation comes at a moment of heightened geopolitical risk:
- Russia’s war in Ukraine remains unresolved, with Kyiv seeking sustained military and political support as Russian forces operate more increasingly on the defensive.
- Peace negotiations or ceasefire frameworks appear stalled, with international mediation increasingly marginalised.
- Europe’s focus on Ukraine’s security is now partially overshadowed by internal trade disputes with Washington.
European foreign policy figures have openly criticised Trump’s actions as inadvertently benefiting adversaries such as Russia and China, arguing that these rifts undermine Western unity when cohesion matters most. As one senior EU official remarked, “China and Russia must be having a field day.”
Read more related news:
US deal to have Greenland ‘should and will be made’ as Trump ‘is serious’
This feeds into a broader geopolitical paradox: when Russia is under sustained military and economic pressure, the United States fracturing relations with its own allies risks relieving that pressure, or at least distracting from it. Attention shifts away from coordinated deterrence and toward transatlantic economic conflict.
Viewed through this lens, Trump’s pressure on NATO partners appears less like a calculated strengthening of Western security and more like a diversion of allied focus away from confronting Moscow’s aggression. This comes even as Russia faces growing constraints on its ability to project influence globally, including legal and operational challenges facing its sanction-evading “shadow fleet”.
Greenland: Strategic prize or symbolic distraction?
The Greenland dispute, nominally framed around national security and missile defence, has become a flashpoint symbolising deeper U.S.–European mistrust. Trump’s insistence that Greenland should come under American control echoes Cold War thinking, yet runs counter to the cooperative NATO framework that has long underpinned Arctic defence.
European leaders have rejected the notion that Greenland is “for sale”, warning that Trump’s tactics risk undermining NATO cohesion. Protests in Denmark and in Greenland itself have reinforced the political reality that Greenlanders do not wish to be placed under U.S. control.
I’ve never seen a US president hated this broadly worldwide. Trump’s name comes up in bars,coffee shops far from America, and it’s never complimentary. That’s before you factor in the US itself. https://t.co/ehvJfTXz4b
— Shaun Pinner (@olddog100ua) January 17, 2026
This fracturing comes at a time when European unity is critical, not only for Ukraine’s defence but also for managing rising Chinese economic influence and persistent Russian hybrid threats. Instead of shared strategic focus, the West now finds itself consumed by a trade dispute between allies, a development Moscow’s strategic messaging is keen to exploit.
Trump is doing what Putin can’t do militarily: relieving pressure on a creaking Russia and a visibly strained Kremlin.
People should be asking serious questions about why he keeps actively assisting Moscow.
Again. pic.twitter.com/d834GAkoZu
— Shaun Pinner (@olddog100ua) January 18, 2026
Canada’s pivot and China’s growing attraction
Across the Atlantic, Canada is also reassessing its alliances and trade relationships as the reliability of the United States increasingly comes into question. Ottawa’s growing engagement with China, particularly in sectors such as electric vehicles, green technology, and critical supply chains, has already caused friction with Washington.
That recalibration was underscored by Mark Carney’s recent visit to China, a move widely interpreted as both economic pragmatism and strategic signalling. While Canadian officials have framed the trip as a necessary engagement in an increasingly multipolar world, its timing speaks volumes. As U.S. trade policy under Trump turns inward and punitive toward allies, even long-standing partners are being pushed to hedge their bets.
Canada, long regarded as a stable NATO ally and cornerstone of North American defence cooperation, now faces increasingly complex choices as U.S. policy diverges from traditional allied consensus. Carney’s outreach to Beijing reflects a broader reality: when Washington becomes unpredictable, partners begin exploring alternative markets, investment sources, and diplomatic channels.
The risk for the West is cumulative. As countries like Canada deepen economic ties with China out of necessity rather than alignment, Western cohesion is diluted further. Tariffs aimed at allies do not merely strain diplomatic relations; they accelerate diversification away from the United States. At home, those same tariffs will almost certainly raise costs for American consumers, adding domestic economic pressure to an already volatile international environment.
Venezuela, Iran, and Russia: A theatre of global chaos
Meanwhile, U.S. actions in the Western Hemisphere have added another layer of strategic turmoil. In early January, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and seized oil tankers linked to sanction-evading networks. While portrayed by some as decisive, the moves were also widely described as chaotic and legally contentious.
Although these actions temporarily disrupted Russia’s economic interests in the region, they also exposed Moscow’s inability to protect its strategic partners, raising uncomfortable questions about Russia’s real influence. At the same time, tensions with Iran remain elevated, stretching U.S. strategic bandwidth and further diluting focus on Ukraine.
In this context, Trump’s confrontations with Europe risk being seen not as reinforcing a united front against Russian aggression, but as unilateral actions that distract from cooperative security priorities. These are distractions Putin’s strategic doctrine would welcome, even if Moscow cannot immediately exploit them militarily.
A peace process fading into the background
Peace talks on Ukraine appear increasingly sidelined. Where leading figures once spoke in terms of days, timelines have slipped into weeks. While the Trump administration initially promoted rapid peace frameworks, recent rhetoric has leaned toward urgency and concession, implicitly suggesting Ukraine is running out of time.
Trump has publicly argued that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, rather than Vladimir Putin, is holding up peace talks — a claim disputed by many analysts and reported by Reuters.
This framing further risks shifting pressure away from the aggressor and onto the invaded state.
With European unity strained and diplomatic momentum fading, the geopolitical landscape looks increasingly fragmented. What should be a coordinated effort to resist Russian expansionism instead drifts toward intra-allied competition and mistrust, a scenario that closely resembles Putin’s ideal strategic environment.
Cracks inside Russia itself
Notably, signs of strain are now emerging even within Russia’s pro-war information space. Prominent military blogger Maxim Kalashnikov, a long-time nationalist voice, recently warned of an “entire era coming to an end,” openly criticising the Kremlin’s leadership and strategic failures. When figures embedded in Russia’s own war-supporting ecosystem begin questioning direction and competence, it underscores the pressure Moscow is under.
At such a moment, Western distraction and division matter profoundly.
Perception matters
Whether deliberate or not, Trump’s tariff strategy has accelerated a transatlantic drift at precisely the moment unity against Russian aggression and Chinese assertiveness is most needed. Rather than tightening alliance cohesion, the confrontation over trade, layered atop stalled peace efforts, Canada’s recalibration, and instability across the Americas, risks reinforcing Moscow’s narrative of a fractured West.
In geopolitics, I’ve learned the hard way that perception often matters more than battlefield realities. Right now, Russian propaganda isn’t selling victory, it’s selling damage limitation, and that alone tells you how much pressure Moscow is under. Yet Trump’s latest moves risk handing the Kremlin a narrative win on a silver platter, at precisely the moment Russia can least afford it. When the West turns inward and starts fighting itself, distraction and division can become as decisive as tanks and missiles, especially when Putin is increasingly unable to deliver real victories on the battlefield.
This is, without question, a dangerous time.
