ANALYSIS. What risk does NATO face under the pressure of Trump's claims to take over Greenland

The crisis triggered by Donald Trump's claims over Greenland does not, in itself, mean the inevitable destruction of NATO, but it represents the most serious test of the Alliance's cohesion, credibility, and legitimacy in the last 30 years.

The political and strategic context

Trump has openly linked the issue of Greenland to his long-standing grievances regarding the level of European defense spending, after years in which he questioned NATO's utility for the US and even threatened withdrawal.

In recent days, Washington announced additional tariffs of 10% on eight European states that oppose American claims over Greenland, turning the dispute into an open transatlantic economic and political conflict.

European leaders have reacted unusually united, convening emergency meetings in Brussels and denouncing the political blackmail related to a sovereign territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The importance of Greenland for NATO's security

Greenland is essential for the security architecture in the North Atlantic and the Arctic: it is from here that the so-called "GIUK Gap" (Greenland–Iceland–UK) is monitored, the corridor through which Russian submarines enter the Atlantic.

The United States already has a significant military presence through the Thule base, and Denmark has begun to strengthen its surveillance and patrolling capabilities in the region, precisely in line with its NATO commitments.

The Trump administration presents the acquisition of Greenland as a condition for securing the northern flank and countering Russia and China in the Arctic, trying to transform a sovereignty dispute into one of "modernizing" the Western security architecture.

Denmark, the EU, and several NATO states have clearly stated that the status of Greenland can be decided exclusively by Denmark and the Greenlandic people, and that "the island is not for sale" and cannot be taken through economic or military pressure.

European leaders insist that accepting the idea that a large ally can "buy" or force a territory from a smaller ally would undermine the principles of territorial integrity on which both the EU and NATO are based.

NATO and collective security, not national hegemony

Brussels argues that security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic must be managed within a NATO framework, not through the unilateral extension of American sovereignty, to avoid the alliance appearing as an instrument of US territorial ambitions.

European officials point out that Denmark is already strengthening its military presence in Greenland – Arctic vessels, surveillance drones, satellite capabilities – precisely to bolster NATO's security in the region without changing borders.

The risk of precedent and escalation

Some European leaders warn of the risk of a dangerous precedent: if the US can claim an allied territory on "strategic" grounds, what would stop other powers from doing the same in other sensitive regions, including Eastern Europe or the Pacific?

European diplomats emphasize that American pressure – tariffs, veiled threats of using force – undermines NATO in the face of Russia, which can exploit divisions to advance its own claims in the Arctic and the Barents Sea.

Disproportionate geopolitical costs for Washington

Several NATO experts warn that the additional strategic benefits of direct control could be outweighed by political costs: loss of allies' trust, acceleration of the EU's strategic autonomy, and opening a propaganda front for Russia and China.

From this perspective, Greenland becomes a test not only of America's appetite for power but also of its ability to lead through consensus, not coercion, in an alliance that claims to be a community of values, not an empire.

Legal and political risks for NATO

Article 5 is based on the idea that no member state will resort to force against another member or its territories; a potential unilateral annexation of Greenland by the US – whether preceded by pressure, blackmail, or "subversive actions" – would strike directly at the essence of collective defense.

Analysts like Anna Wieslander and experts cited in the Western press warn that a scenario of using force against Greenland would transform NATO into a "shadow" of what it is today, as no state would be able to trust that the alliance protects it, rather than exposes it.

Trump's repeated statements, including the famous phrase that Russia can do "whatever the hell they want" with allies that do not meet the 2% of GDP threshold, further undermine the principle of indivisible security, fueling suspicion that Washington could instrumentalize NATO in strictly national interest.

The economic and psychological dimension of the crisis

The tariffs announced against Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, and other European states create a double rift: economic, through potential significant trade losses, and political, by delegitimizing the transatlantic partnership in the face of their own public opinions.

Copenhagen's reaction – "Europe will not be blackmailed" – indicates that for Denmark and the EU, it is not just about money or tariffs, but about respect for sovereignty and international rules, which is the normative foundation on which NATO was built after 1949.

In European capitals, the shock comes not only from the radical nature of American claims but also from the speed with which a dispute over an island becomes an existential test for the belief of populations in the utility and morality of the alliance.

Scenarios for evolution and the probability of dissolution

The maximum negative scenario – the dissolution of NATO – involves a combination of factors:

the actual use of force or "limited military means" by the US against Greenland;

a massive refusal of European states to cooperate militarily with Washington;

the emergence of parallel exclusively European defense initiatives, outside the NATO framework.

So far, the main reaction of the EU is oriented towards increasing strategic autonomy, not towards formal rupture: discussions about increased investments in defense and the capacity to act without the US are intensifying, but there are still no official calls to leave NATO.

At the same time, Denmark is strengthening its military presence in Greenland and intensifying exercises with NATO allies, signaling that, from its perspective, the response is not withdrawal, but deepening cooperation within the alliance to counterbalance American pressures.

In conclusion, the real short-term risk is not a sudden dissolution of NATO, but its transformation into a formal structure, emptied of political trust and solidarity, in which legal clauses continue to exist, but the will to apply them becomes deeply eroded by the dispute over Greenland and the temptation of Washington to use the alliance as an instrument of pressure, not as a collective defense pact.

Analysis conducted with the support of NewsVibe and Perplexity Comet