The question of whether Germany slow against the US on high-profile international issues like Venezuela and Greenland has become a focal point in diplomatic circles. Observers note that Washington’s assertive moves, including a military operation that ousted Venezuela’s president and renewed talk of acquiring Greenland, have put European capitals, especially Berlin, in a delicate position—balancing criticism, alliance obligations, and strategic caution. The topic is immediately clear: Germany’s diplomatic pace and posture toward assertive US behavior raise questions about effectiveness and alignment with broader European interests.
This article explores Germany’s responses, the context around US actions, and what Berlin’s stance means for European security dynamics.
Background: US Actions Stir European Reactions
In early January 2026, the United States launched a controversial military action in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro. This act drew criticism from legal experts and some European politicians who questioned its consistency with international law. The Guardian
Almost simultaneously, US rhetoric revived talk of acquiring Greenland, a Danish territory of strategic Arctic importance, prompting robust statements from several European capitals. Reuters
These developments have highlighted contrasting approaches between Washington’s assertive diplomacy and cautious reactions from parts of the European Union.
Germany’s Official Position on Venezuela
Berlin has stressed a political solution over military actions in Venezuela. Germany’s foreign ministry has urged de-escalation, respect for international law, and prioritizing peaceful pathways to address the crisis. Reuters
This approach aligns with broader EU diplomatic language, which often favors negotiation and multilateral engagement over direct intervention. Some German politicians praised the change in leadership in Caracas as a hopeful moment, while others criticized the US action as potentially violating international norms. Wikipedia
Critics argue that this measured stance can appear slow or non-confrontational in contrast to the decisiveness shown by Washington’s policy.
The Greenland Issue: Strategic and Diplomatic Stakes
Greenland’s status as a semi-autonomous part of Denmark has suddenly become a flashpoint due to statements from the US administration suggesting that American control would serve strategic interests. Wikipedia
European partners, including Germany, have joined with other NATO allies in reaffirming that decisions about Greenland’s future belong to its people and Denmark, countering unilateral US assertions. Wikipedia
However, compared with more forceful rhetoric from allies like France or United Kingdom, some observers see Germany’s public response as less prominent, contributing to a perception that Berlin is slow to push back.
Understanding Berlin’s Calculated Diplomacy
Cautious Multilateralism
Germany tends to prioritize a rules-based international order and consensus-driven diplomacy. This style emphasizes diplomatic engagement through multilateral institutions like the United Nations and EU frameworks, rather than unilateral condemnations. This explains why Berlin’s language on Venezuela and Greenland tends to be measured and often aligned with EU communiqués.
Balancing NATO and EU Interests
As a leading European NATO member, Germany must weigh its responses so as not to fracture transatlantic unity while still advocating for principles it deems fundamental. For example, while Germany supports upholding sovereignty and territorial integrity, it also seeks to maintain cooperation with the United States on security issues such as the war in Ukraine.
This dual path—supportive of alliance cohesion yet cautious about escalation—can appear conservative compared with the immediacy of US foreign policy action.
Critics: Is Germany Too Passive?
Perception of “Slowness”
Critics argue that Germany’s slower diplomatic language may undermine Europe’s standing, suggesting a reluctance to confront assertive actions by allies that challenge international norms. In the case of Venezuela, the critique stems from an expectation that European powers should more forcefully criticize violations of sovereignty. The Guardian
In the Greenland context, observers suggest that rhetorical support for Denmark should be matched by clearer strategic commitments and visible leadership.
Strategic Backdrop: Europe’s Arctic Awareness
Some analysts argue that Europe has historically under-prioritized Arctic strategy, which now leaves the region vulnerable to geopolitical competition. They contend that merely issuing statements is insufficient without substantive strategic planning that includes military presence, infrastructure, and cooperation. Atlantic Council
This view portrays the EU—and by extension, Germany—as reactive rather than proactive.
Supporters: Value of Steady Diplomacy
Proponents of Berlin’s approach argue that stability and adherence to norms are key to sustainable foreign policy. By resisting knee-jerk reactions and advocating negotiation, Germany reinforces the importance of international law and multilateral dispute resolution.
In complex crises like Venezuela and geopolitical sensitivities involving Greenland, patient diplomacy may avoid deeper confrontation while still safeguarding principles.
Broader European Dynamics
Germany does not act alone. Several EU members have issued firm statements of solidarity with Denmark and Greenland, and have reaffirmed support for political resolution in Venezuela. Reuters
Yet variation exists within Europe. Some governments are more vocal or assertive, while others align closely with Berlin’s cautious stance.
What Could Change?
As tensions persist, Berlin’s diplomatic pace and rhetoric may evolve. Domestic political pressures, shifts in EU foreign policy consensus, or changes in the US administration’s tone could all influence how Germany positions itself in future disputes.
Strategic dialogues within NATO and the EU could also result in clearer, more assertive joint responses that blend Germany’s emphasis on rules with the assertiveness its critics seek.
Conclusion
The notion that Germany slow against the US on issues such as Venezuela and Greenland reflects the contrast between Washington’s assertive tactics and Berlin’s cautious, multilateral diplomacy. While critics see passivity, defenders argue that considered engagement preserves long-term stability and respect for international norms.
