An American military takeover of Greenland, which increasingly looks possible, would involve multiple contradictions.
The first casualty of any such move would be the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or NATO, which was formed by 12 nations in 1949 to counter the security threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Now with 32 members, NATO is structured on the premise that an attack on any one of its ranks must be considered by other members as an attack on all — the collective security guarantee embodied in Article 5 of the Treaty.
The only time it has ever been triggered was in 2001, to support the US in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Ironically, Denmark, which administers Greenland, was among the first to invoke Article 5. Danish soldiers subsequently fought and died alongside US troops in Afghanistan, losing 43 service members — one of the highest per-capita casualty rates among NATO allies.
An American excursion in Greenland would kill NATO in one swoop. Article 5 was made without duly considering the possibility of a predicament that NATO faces now – a member, and the most powerful one, violating the territorial integrity of another. Denmark has said that it would invoke Article 5. What happens after that is uncertain.
The second irony is that US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric plays right into the hands of two of America’s adversaries: Russia and China. NATO was an instrument designed to neutralise the Soviet threat, and that has stood the test of time. Any fractures within would end up benefiting the inheritor of the original target nation — an already belligerent Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin would welcome any move that fractures NATO or diverts the bloc’s resources away from the war in Ukraine. While the Greenland misadventure is being planned to ostensibly limit Russian influence in the Arctic and beyond, the most effective way to do that is by defeating Putin’s war in Ukraine and targeting Greenland makes little sense.
“The strength of NATO depends on unity, trust and respect for the sovereignty of every member state,” American Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Ranking Member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said when she and Lisa Murkowski introduced the NATO Unity Protection Act, a bipartisan legislation to prohibit the use of US Department of Defense or Department of State funds to “blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control over the sovereign territory of a NATO member state” on January 13.
Story continues below this ad
Third, the US already has what it needs, including a standing treaty with Greenland dating back to 1951. America once operated 17 bases in Greenland and it was Washington DC that progressively determined 16 were no longer necessary. These can be operationalised right away, if the US wanted to.
Also, when Trump claims that China and Russia are broadening their presence in the Arctic in an attempt to counter NATO capabilities on and under the sea, there is some element of truth in it. But he’s got the location wrong. It’s not Greenland, but the waters around Alaska that are being targeted by the two American adversaries.
“We’ve seen growing cooperation between the [People’s Republic of China] and Russia in the Arctic, commercially, with the PRC being a major funder of Russian energy exploitation in the Arctic, and increasingly militarily, with Russia and China conducting joint exercises off the coast of Alaska,” said Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said in a briefing in July 2024.
In a subsequent “2024 Department of Defense Arctic Strategy,” the Pentagon said that America’s Arctic infrastructure, mostly built during the Cold War, “faces degradation” due to permafrost thaw and coastal erosion. The target location then too was primarily the waters around Alaska.
The backers
Story continues below this ad
So, how does Trump plan to get Greenland? The White House press secretary has explicitly said that military takeover of Greenland is not off the cards. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, has been quoted saying he will be holding talks with European officials to talk about purchasing the place. What is abundantly clear is that Denmark is not in the market to sell Greenland. In fact, it is now such a politically charged topic in Copenhagen, and in Nuuk, that the Danish government could fall if they were to consider a commercial deal involving Greenland.
The push for Greenland seems to be coming from different Trump constituencies within America. Tech investor and Trump confidant Peter Thiel of PayPal and Palantir has talked of setting up a new post-nation settlement, a libertarian project of sorts, in a place like Greenland. Elon Musk has professed interest in rare earths beneath the icy territory. American billionaire Ronald Lauder, the son and heir of cosmetics queen Esteé Lauder and another Trump confidant, is cited as being among the first persons to have breathed the Greenland idea in Trump’s ear. And the American president is said to be looking at this as a real estate developer, which is a very instinctive thing for him.
The country most concerned if Greenland were to be annexed would be Canada, because the north American nation would then be hemmed in on all sides. And there is already a debate underway in Canada about going nuclear.
Amid the changing situation, a strategic expert from that country had said Canada may need to reconsider its position on nuclear weapons. In the current geopolitical environment, Canadians need to start thinking about “difficult questions” around national security, Jean-François Bélanger, assistant professor of Military Operations at the Royal Danish Defence College, said in an interview with BNN Bloomberg last year. That view is now gaining traction in Canada.
Story continues below this ad
And if NATO were to implode, Germany and Poland could think of going nuclear. So could South Korea and Japan. It could set off a potential nuclear arms race.
