“Faced with the threat of punishing tariffs by President Trump if he does not get his way over acquiring Greenland, European Union leaders began to coalesce around a negotiation strategy on Sunday, without ruling out retaliatory taxes of their own,” the New York Times reports.

“Mr. Trump on Saturday had demanded a deal to buy Greenland, saying on social media that otherwise he would slap tariffs on a group of European nations, starting with 10 percent in February, then ramping up to 25 percent in June.”

“On Sunday, ambassadors from across the 27-nation bloc met in Brussels to take stock of the situation. While those were just preliminary talks, they made a few things clear. Officials would rather negotiate than retaliate, for one. But they are also committed to protecting Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, from being bought or taken over if that is not what its people want.”

Wall Street Journal: Europe is bracing for a new trade fight with Trump.

Robert Kagan: “Americans are entering the most dangerous world they have known since World War II, one that will make the Cold War look like child’s play and the post–Cold War world like paradise. In fact, this new world will look a lot like the world prior to 1945, with multiple great powers and metastasizing competition and conflict.”

“The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less, because the open access to overseas resources, markets, and strategic bases that Americans have enjoyed will no longer come as a benefit of the country’s alliances. Instead, they will have to be contested and defended against other great powers…”

“Americans are so accustomed to this basically peaceful, prosperous, and open world that they tend to think it is the normal state of international affairs, likely to continue indefinitely. They can’t imagine it unraveling, much less what that unraveling will mean for them.”

“The Arctic is warming around four times faster than the rest of the globe, exposing natural resources, opening up potential shipping routes and prompting an increase in activity among military powers,” the Washington Post reports.

“The changing landscape has created a region ripe for opportunity — and potential conflict — factors that may play a role in President Donald Trump’s sudden quest to obtain Greenland.”

“Donald Trump’s decision to slap tariffs on countries that have shown support for Greenland is pushing transatlantic relations to a breaking point as EU leaders contemplate ways of retaliating against Washington that until now have been unthinkable,” Politico reports.

New York Times: “Officials and outside analysts increasingly argue that Europe will need to respond to Mr. Trump with force, most likely by hitting back on trade. But doing so could come at a heavy cost both to the bloc’s economy and to its security, since Europe remains heavily reliant on the United States for support through NATO and in Russia’s war with Ukraine.”

CNN: A stunned Europe finally wakes up to Trump’s Greenland threat.

“The Trump administration is asking countries that want a permanent spot on his new Board of Peace to contribute at least $1 billion,” Bloomberg reports.

“According to a draft charter for the proposed group seen by Bloomberg, President Donald Trump would serve as its inaugural chairman and would decide on who is invited to be members. Decisions would be taken by a majority, with each member state present getting one vote, but all would be subject to the chairman’s approval.”

Wall Street Journal: “Voters are divided on the Jan. 3 military action, with 49% approving and 47% disapproving of the raid in which U.S. Special Forces bombed targets in Caracas and captured Maduro and his wife, transporting them to the U.S. to face narco-terrorism charges.”

“There is a stark partisan divide—89% of Republicans support the operation, while 86% of Democrats disapprove.”

“A majority of voters rejected deeper U.S. involvement in Venezuela. Respondents opposed having the U.S. ‘run the country’ by 57% to 39%, suggesting little appetite for an open-ended U.S. role or nation-building mission.”