Analysis: Trump’s Greenland gambit tests NATO’s red lines — and its trust
The White House says President Donald Trump is weighing options, including military action, to take Greenland — despite Denmark’s warning that an attack on a NATO ally would spell the alliance’s end. The clash of rhetoric has thrust Greenland, NATO and U.S.-Europe ties into an unexpected stress test at a volatile moment for Western security.
- Advertisement -
Whether this escalates into a full-blown crisis hinges on two questions: Is the military threat real or a pressure tactic, and can diplomacy — including a potential purchase bid — defuse the standoff before trust inside NATO erodes further?
What’s driving the push
In the wake of his military intervention in Venezuela, Trump repeated his insistence that he wants to take control of Greenland, a mineral-rich, semi-autonomous territory of Denmark that already hosts a U.S. military base. This time, the administration hardened its framing. “Acquiring Greenland is a national security priority,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, adding that “utilising the US military is always an option.”
Trump’s interest dates to his first term. The strategic rationale is straightforward: Greenland is a gateway to the Arctic, where melting ice is opening new sea lanes and intensifying competition with Russia and China. The United States already has a footprint through Thule Air Base and — under existing agreements with Copenhagen — could station more troops without resorting to force.
Why NATO is in the line of fire
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that an attack on a NATO ally would end the alliance. That is not hyperbole. NATO’s Article 5 commits members to defend one another if attacked — a promise designed to deter external threats, not to govern internal disputes. A U.S. move against Danish sovereignty would shatter the bedrock assumption that the alliance’s leading power would never turn its might inward.
The political cost would likely precede any military move. Even entertaining the notion of using force against Denmark risks undercutting the alliance’s deterrence by eroding confidence in U.S. judgment and reliability — precisely as Europe leans on Washington to counter Moscow after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
How real is the military option
So far, there are no signs of the force posture changes that preceded operations elsewhere, such as around Venezuela. NATO officials have publicly played down the prospect of an invasion, while acknowledging the uncertainty that follows Trump’s persistent rhetoric. “We don’t believe he would — there is no need — the US can get any access they want from Denmark,” a senior NATO diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity. “But given the persistent rhetoric, we can’t be entirely sure.”
European leaders are signaling disbelief and alarm. French President Emmanuel Macron said he couldn’t “imagine a scenario” in which Washington violates Danish sovereignty. The Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, said Greenland “is part of Denmark and the EU is rock-solid behind Denmark.”
Diplomacy’s off-ramps: purchase, presence, partnership
U.S. media reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told politicians that Trump wants to buy Greenland rather than attack it — a gambit with historical precedent but steep political and legal hurdles. Any sale would require buy-in from Copenhagen and Greenland’s own government, which has broad autonomy.
There is also a status quo-plus option: expanding U.S. presence under existing bilateral arrangements. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has leaned into that premise, stressing shared security goals in the Arctic and the need to blunt Russian and Chinese influence. “The Danes are totally fine if the US would have a bigger presence than they have now,” Rutte told CNN. “We have to make sure that the Arctic stays safe.”
NATO’s posture: stay out, avoid a split
So far, NATO as an institution is steering clear. “I don’t think this issue will ever be brought up in a NATO framework in order to avoid any divisions,” another NATO diplomat said. The calculus is clear: with Russia’s war still raging in Ukraine, European capitals want to lock in U.S. commitment, not test it in a debate over Greenland.
Still, some members are signaling a readiness to step up politically. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said Paris is talking to Germany and Poland about a potential response. Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken warned that “no one has any interest in a quarrel within NATO, except our enemies,” predicting quiet initiatives to defuse the dispute.
The core risks: deterrence, precedent and politics
Even if a military move never materializes, the immediate danger for NATO is reputational and strategic. If allies begin to believe the United States might coerce an ally to cede territory, that perception alone could weaken collective resolve, embolden adversaries, and complicate coordinated planning from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It would also hand Moscow and Beijing an easy narrative about Western hypocrisy just as NATO presses its case in the Global South.
At home, a Greenland fight could become a political proxy for broader questions about U.S. commitments, defense priorities and the scope of presidential power in foreign affairs. In Europe, it could fuel calls for “strategic autonomy” — more self-reliant defense posture — even as war on the continent makes transatlantic solidarity more urgent.
What to watch next
Several indicators will show whether this crisis is cooling or escalating:
• Military movements: Any unusual U.S. deployments or readiness changes near the North Atlantic would be early warning signs.
• Diplomacy: Signals from Copenhagen, Nuuk and Washington about talks — whether over a purchase, basing arrangements or joint Arctic initiatives — would point toward de-escalation.
• NATO consultations: An emergency session or public statement would suggest the issue is creeping into alliance management, despite efforts to keep it outside NATO’s formal channels.
• European coordination: Watch Paris, Berlin and Warsaw for a unified line — and whether they frame this as a test of sovereignty, deterrence or Arctic strategy.
The likely path
The path of least damage for all sides is clear: keep the dispute out of NATO, lean on existing U.S.-Danish arrangements to expand Arctic security cooperation, and convert Trump’s stated goals into a negotiated framework — whether or not a purchase remains on the table. That would align with Macron’s skepticism about any violation of Danish sovereignty and with Rutte’s emphasis on shared Arctic security.
But the episode has already carried a cost. By raising the specter of force against an ally — even as leverage — Washington risks fraying the trust that has underpinned Western security for seven decades. With war in Ukraine and great-power competition intensifying in the Arctic, the alliance can ill afford new fissures. The test now is whether candor behind closed doors, combined with disciplined public messaging, can restore confidence before speculation becomes policy — and before policy breaks what deterrence depends on most: unity.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
