With the United States increasing pressure on Greenland, the international community is watching closely to see what might unfold. Aaron Newbury examines the potential consequences if the U.S. decides to act.
Europe, which has long relied on a stable transatlantic alliance, now finds itself holding its breath. Following the high-profile capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces, Donald Trump has expressed ambitions to expand American territory a goal that could come at the expense of long-standing allies.
Reports suggest that Trump has considered multiple strategies for acquiring Greenland, including military options. While his interest in the island has been public for years, recent U.S. military operations in South America have made European leaders take these threats far more seriously. For NATO, this presents an unprecedented scenario: the possibility that the alliance’s most powerful member could act aggressively toward another member.
Stephen Miller, a close Trump advisor, recently remarked that “nobody’s going to fight the U.S. over Greenland,” a comment echoed by the White House Press Secretary, who said military action is “always an option.” For Denmark, a loyal U.S. ally with troops who fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan, this is alarming. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned bluntly that an attack on Greenland would mean “everything stops, including NATO.”
Despite the warning, Denmark faces an uncomfortable reality: it cannot militarily resist the United States. The U.S. military budget exceeds the combined budgets of the next fifteen nations, making direct confrontation impossible. Recognizing this, Frederiksen has sought support from European partners, leading to an extraordinary joint statement. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland emphasized that Greenland’s future must be decided collectively with Denmark and Greenland, and that NATO’s involvement must remain cooperative.
The U.S. responded quickly, reiterating that a “range of options” is under discussion. Diplomacy is ongoing, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio scheduled to meet Danish officials. One potential resolution, from the European perspective, could involve a purchase of Greenland. Trump and his administration have hinted at this, with suggested figures reaching tens of billions of dollars, possibly including direct payments to Greenland residents. While costly, such a transaction would allow Trump to achieve his goal without deploying troops.
Even if the U.S. ultimately backs down from military action, the repercussions are significant. American credibility in Europe has suffered, with NATO allies now questioning the reliability of the U.S. commitment. The transatlantic bond, which has held Europe together since World War II, may appear conditional rather than steadfast.
If negotiations stall, Trump might even consider withdrawing from NATO, an alliance he has frequently criticized. Security experts warn that without U.S. backing, European defense could weaken, raising serious concerns about the stability of Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression.
Though unlikely, there are reports that Greenland’s military is prepared to resist an incursion. Should U.S. forces land, Danish troops could engage, raising questions about NATO’s collective defense under Article 5, which protects members but was never designed to address a scenario where the U.S. is the aggressor. Finnish officials have noted that Greenland falls under this protection, but how the alliance would respond remains uncertain.
The stakes extend beyond Europe. If the U.S. were to acquire Greenland by force or coercion, it could embolden other global powers to pursue territorial ambitions. Observers have already noted Russia exploring options in Ukraine in coordination with U.S. concessions, while questions arise about Taiwan, India-Pakistan border disputes, and Russian expansionism. The post–World War II system of inviolable borders could be undermined, ushering in a new era of raw power politics.
As it stands, the West has limited options to counteract a determined Trump. Denmark, a founding NATO member and long-standing ally, would struggle to resist. American forces could quickly establish control over Greenland, while European powers would have few practical means to intervene despite invoking collective defense measures.
Vice President JD Vance recently underscored the imbalance, advising Europe to take Trump seriously and suggesting that past Danish decisions do not guarantee future ones. The message is clear: Greenland is on Trump’s radar, and the West may have little influence over what happens next.
The real question now may not be whether the U.S. can acquire Greenland, but what the consequences will be for NATO and the broader international order if it does.
Comments
Post a Comment