Trump's Greenland Ambition Pushes NATO Toward Historic Breakdown
President Donald Trump's aggressive push to acquire Greenland for the United States has ignited the most serious crisis within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since the Second World War. His threat to impose punishing tariffs on European allies who resist this demand has fused longstanding tensions over trade and security into a volatile mix that now threatens the very foundation of the Western alliance.
An Alliance in Tatters
Just months ago, officials across the Atlantic believed they had stabilized the Western alliance. Today, that same coalition which triumphed in the Cold War lies fractured. Trump's recent social media declaration that "World Peace is at stake!" and his assertion that only the U.S. can secure Greenland from Chinese or Russian influence have sent shockwaves through European capitals.
The President followed this with an explicit threat: escalating tariffs on European goods until allies agree to U.S. ownership of the Danish territory. This economic coercion, combined with his dismissal of allies' value, has created unprecedented alarm in Europe. Governments are reeling from what they perceive as hostile American actions since Trump returned to power a year ago.
The Shattering of Trust
NATO's strength has always rested not just on military infrastructure but on political cohesion and mutual trust. The bedrock belief that America would defend its European partners against attack has provided the alliance with its deterrent power. That fundamental trust now faces severe doubt.
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Doug Lute, who served as America's ambassador to NATO, captured the gravity of the situation. "The organization will survive, but the trust—the glue that has held it together for over 75 years—has been shattered," he stated. "It will not be effective."
Europe's Dilemma: Deference or Defiance
Trump's revived Greenland ambition tests the limits of Europe's strategy of managing Washington through cooperation and limited concessions. European leaders now struggle to formulate a response, caught between fear of provoking further American ire and determination to draw a firm line against territorial annexation.
Some nations contemplate demonstrating that American pressure carries consequences, potentially jeopardizing the trade deal reached with the European Union last summer that benefits U.S. businesses. Others explore harsher trade retaliation, while some hope to defuse tensions through behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
On Sunday, Denmark and seven European allies issued a joint statement warning that "tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral." They pledged to stand united in their response.
A Strategy of Flattery That Failed
For the past year, European countries largely avoided criticizing Trump despite deep concerns over his trade policies, handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, and broader trans-Atlantic relations. Their approach amounted to a trade-off: sacrificing economic benefits for security assurances.
Allied leaders employed flattery and deference, exemplified when NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called Trump "daddy" last summer. However, Europeans increasingly worry that such displays of praise and fealty no longer work. Most European governments now fear a full rupture could lead Trump to declare NATO's end, forcing them to build a costly alternative military alliance without American support.
Historical Sacrifices Forgotten
Europeans have long argued that while their defense spending lagged behind America's, they consistently stood by Washington and defended Western interests. NATO invoked its mutual-defense clause, Article 5, only once—to support the United States after the September 11 terrorist attacks. In Afghanistan, Denmark suffered the highest per capita fatality rate among all NATO members, including America.
Now the administration appears to disregard these past efforts. Vice President JD Vance recently told Fox News, "Just because you did something smart 25 years ago doesn't mean you can't do something dumb now."
Questioning the Foundation
Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on American commitment to Article 5. During his first term, he stunned allies by refusing to make the routine U.S. pledge to defend NATO members. In his 2024 campaign, he said he would encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" to allies failing to meet spending targets. Last week, he wrote on social media, "I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM."
Adversaries Watching With Popcorn
Veterans of the Atlantic alliance warn that Western rivals stand to gain most from this rift. Oana Lungescu, who served as NATO spokeswoman for 13 years including during Trump's first term, observed, "Ultimately this is only damaging America's standing in the world." She added, "The only people I see benefiting from this are Putin and Xi. They must be ordering popcorn."
A Perplexing Demand
Trump's Greenland demand particularly baffles Europeans because, unlike his complaints about low European defense spending, it lacks logical foundation to them and many Americans. While Europeans understood his political agenda on trade, they find almost no sympathy for his Greenland position. Even staunch Trump supporter Nigel Farage criticized the tariff threat, stating, "We don't always agree with the U.S. government and in this case we certainly don't."
Dog Sleds and Dangerous Games
On Saturday, Trump dismissed Denmark's capacity to defend Greenland as amounting to "two dog sleds." He accused European allies of endangering world peace by sending military personnel to Greenland for exercises that Denmark had invited and NATO had approved.
U.S. Army Colonel Martin O'Donnell, spokesman for NATO's military command, stated last Thursday that such exercises "bolster our collective defenses there." But Trump declared the situation "very dangerous" and imposed a 10% tariff on all goods from involved European countries starting February 1, rising to 25% in June unless a deal is reached for "the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland."
A Line in the Ice
Denmark has said the U.S. is welcome to increase its military presence in Greenland and has sought talks on cooperation. But both Copenhagen and Greenland's government have stated unequivocally that the island is not for sale. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that forced American annexation of an ally's territory would mean NATO's end.
Europe's major countries have backed Denmark, asserting that only Danes and Greenlanders can decide Greenland's future. As NATO faces what Lungescu calls "a very dangerous moment—one we haven't seen before," the alliance confronts its greatest test since its founding, with the very principles of territorial integrity and mutual trust hanging in the balance.
