BRUSSELS (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump's latest threats against Greenland pose a new and potentially unprecedented challenge to NATO, perhaps even an existential one, for an alliance focused on external threats that could now face an armed confrontation involving its most powerful member.
The White House says the administration is weighing “options” that could include military action to take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich
island, which is a semi-autonomous region that is part of NATO ally Denmark.
Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland could put at risk the entire future of NATO, which was founded in 1949 to counter the threat to European security posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The alliance is normally focused on threats such as those from Russia or international terror groups. It would not function without U.S. leadership and firepower.
NATO, the world’s biggest security organization, was built on a “Three Musketeers”-like vow that an attack on anyone in its ranks will be met with a response from all of them. That security guarantee, enshrined in Article 5 of its founding treaty, has kept Russia away from allied territory for decades.
But in an organization that operates on unanimity, Article 5 does not function if one member targets another.
Uneasy allies and neighbors Greece and Turkey have harassed each other’s military forces and disputed borders for decades. But past internal clashes have never posed the kind of threat to NATO unity that would arise from an American seizure of Greenland.
In a post on social media Wednesday, Trump said that “RUSSIA AND CHINA HAVE ZERO FEAR OF NATO WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES.” But he added: “We will always be there for NATO, even if they won’t be there for us.”
The White House took its threats toward Greenland to a new level Tuesday, issuing an official statement that insisted Greenland is “a national security priority” and refusing to rule out the use of military force.
“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal,” it said.
Ian Lesser, distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States think tank and an expert on NATO, described the White House statement as “very striking.”
“It’s a low-probability, high-consequence event if it were to happen. But the odds have changed, and so it becomes more difficult to simply dismiss this as bluster from the White House,” he said.
The statement came after the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain defended the sovereignty of Greenland, along with Denmark, whose right to the island was recognized by the U.S. government at the beginning of the 20th century.
“It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” the leaders said Tuesday in a joint statement. Canada, which sits off the western coast of an island that has been crucial to the defense of North America since World War II, expressed its support as well.
NATO itself remains reluctant to say anything that might annoy its leading member.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that the U.S. threat must be taken seriously, particularly after Trump ordered the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a nighttime raid, and that any U.S. attempt to take control of the island could mean the end of NATO.
Asked whether Frederiksen was right when she said that an American attack on another NATO country means that "everything stops,” an official at the alliance said: “NATO does not speculate on hypotheticals.”
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because NATO protocol forbids the use of their name, preferred to note Greenland’s strategic significance.
“The Arctic is an important region for our collective security, and NATO has a clear interest in preserving security, stability and cooperation in the high north,” the official said. “Together we make sure that the whole of the alliance is protected.”
Trump’s interest in Greenland also threatens to destabilize the alliance at the moment when the U.S.-led efforts to end the war in Ukraine enter a pivotal stage, distracting its members from their efforts to support Kyiv and provide it with security guarantees.
Maria Martisiute, a defense analyst at the European Policy Center think tank, warned that NATO’s credibility is on the line.
When a leading alliance member undermines another member, it hurts "NATO’s cohesion and credibility, and it serves only our adversaries such as Russia and China,” she said.
Last summer, NATO leaders rallied behind Trump’s demand that they increase defense spending. Apart from Spain, they agreed to invest as much per capita as the United States does, within a decade.
Just before Christmas, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte hailed Trump as a savior.
“I believe fundamentally that thanks to Donald J. Trump, NATO is stronger than it ever was,” Rutte told BBC radio. “NATO has never been as strong as this moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
Yet in a year-end address in Germany meant to rally to European citizens behind defense spending, Rutte warned that Russia might attack elsewhere in Europe within a few years should it win in Ukraine.
“Conflict is at our door,” the former Dutch prime minister said. “Russia has brought war back to Europe, and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured.”
Lesser said it's difficult to reconcile Trump's defense spending victory with his designs on Greenland.
“What good is it to have revived NATO capability if it’s no longer a functional political alliance” afterwards? he asked. If that breakdown occurs, “it's a gift to Moscow, and it’s a gift to Beijing.”
___
Associated Press journalist Mark Carlson in Brussels contributed to this report.
