NATO, which has accused Russia of testing the resolve of its Article 5 collective defense pledge, faces a new threat from within amid President Donald Trump’s repeated claim that he wants Greenland for American security purposes.
The autonomous Arctic island, which is part of the kingdom of Denmark, could determine the fate of the alliance, whose charter says that an attack on one member is an attack on all.
While the war in Ukraine has focused alliance members on the threat posed by Moscow, a move on NATO territory within the alliance from its main member would spell an end to the military bloc, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned.
The White House, which has not ruled out a military move, said it was “discussing a range of options” to acquire Greenland—all of them unilateral—including buying the island. Below, Newsweek looks at how NATO might respond.
Take Military Measures
Eight European leaders issued a joint statement on Tuesday in support of Denmark and Greenland.
But given the reluctance of the EU to condemn the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, it is unclear how the Continent would react if there was a military move to capture the Arctic island, Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), told Newsweek.
“Taking control of Greenland would be very quick,” Søndergaard said. “There would be very little resistance, if any. The U.S. is already the de facto military power in Greenland through its base there, so it would be a matter of sending in some special troops.”
The U.S. has a presence at Pituffik Space Base, a U.S. Space Force installation that has been in operation since 1943. A 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement allows the U.S. to use the base, which hosts the 12th Space Warning Squadron, an active airfield and the northernmost deepwater port.
Søndergaard said he would expect a mixed European reaction to a hostile military move by the U.S., “but there’s no European military response that I can think of.”
“The repercussions would be much more severe if there was any sort of fighting up there,” he said. “It’s hard to speculate about because it’s so difficult to imagine U.S. troops fighting European troops in Greenland.”
There is an option to increase the military presence of Danish and French forces as Paris has suggested, but “then you would have a potential military confrontation,” Søndergaard continued. “The result would be the same. If the U.S. wants to take control militarily, it can do so.”
Exert Diplomatic Pressure
European countries would be uncomfortable provoking the U.S. given the need for American security against the threat posed by Russia, Søndergaard said.
As Trump touts the strategic value of Greenland, governments must build coalitions to emphasize to Trump that the U.S. can address security concerns through existing agreements, he added.
Roger Hilton, a NATO expert and defense research fellow at the Slovakia-based think tank GLOBSEC, told Newsweek that the alliance had a record of navigating deeply uncomfortable internal situations.
The 1974 Turkish intervention in Cyprus tested the alliance’s limits, yet NATO focused on preventing spillover and maintaining cohesion rather than intervening militarily, he said.
“The same principle would apply today. The priority would be finding a negotiated compromise that serves to preserve and elevate U.S. strategic interests while respecting Danish sovereignty and alliance norms,” Hilton said.
Any U.S. move on Greenland would almost certainly be treated first as a political crisis within the alliance, not a military contingency, he added.
As such, the secretary-general’s focus would be on containing escalation through diplomacy, allied mediation, leveraging the North Atlantic Council and activating bilateral back channels, rather than through force, Hilton said.
Refuse U.S. Ships and Personnel
European countries could refuse to refuel U.S. ships in European ports, not accept injured military personnel in European military hospitals and demand high payments for the continued stationing of U.S. troops, Marion Messmer, the director of Chatham House’s international security program, wrote in a paper for the think tank.
They could also propose closing certain military installations.
“European states have significant leverage that the current U.S. administration seems keen to overlook,” Messmer wrote, adding that removing European bases that support U.S. military would “make some operations in the Middle East and High North much harder.”
Søndergaard said, “Europe could consider whether it still wants American military bases in Europe if it has attacked another European country’s territory.”
“It is an extreme scenario to contemplate removing American personnel from Europe, but most Europeans would like them to stay because of Russia,” he continued.
Consider NATO Future Without the U.S.
Trump has long complained that NATO members do not pay their fair share, and an alliance summit last year hailed that he had pushed the alliance to a new defense spending pledge of 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2035.
The U.S. president’s ambiguous commitment toward the alliance’s European members was made manifest by the National Security Strategy released in December, which showed Washington’s priority is the Western Hemisphere, not Europe.
Messmer wrote that European countries need to think seriously about what NATO without the U.S. would look like, and up investment in areas where the U.S. remains strongest, such as command-and-control networks and air defense.
“They will now also need to seriously consider what kind of an adversary the U.S. might be, especially in the event that it attacks Greenland,” Messmer wrote, adding that European states “can no longer afford to ignore this possibility.”
The news cycle is loud. Algorithms push us to extremes. In the middle—where facts, ideas and progress live—there’s a void. At Newsweek, we fill it with fearless, fair and fiercely independent journalism.
Common ground isn’t just possible—it’s essential. Our readers reflect America’s diversity, united by a desire for thoughtful, unbiased news. Independent ratings confirm our approach: NewsGuard gives us 100/100 for reliability, and AllSides places us firmly in the political center.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. Ours is different: The Courageous Center—it’s not “both sides,” it’s sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy:
- Conventional Wisdom: Tracking political winds with clarity.
- Uncommon Knowledge: Deep dives into overlooked truths.
- Ad-free browsing and exclusive editor conversations.
Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
