A Troubling Scenario: Nato and the EU's Greenland Dilemma
In a recent turn of events, the so-called Coalition of the Willing, a group largely composed of European leaders, convened in Paris with representatives of US President Donald Trump. Their mission? To forge ahead with a sustainable peace deal for Ukraine. With Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky expressing confidence that a plan to end the war with Russia was nearly complete, the atmosphere in that Paris room was tense, to say the least.
But lurking beneath the surface was an even more pressing concern: the future of Greenland. With the Trump administration's controversial moves in Venezuela and the US President's subsequent statement on Greenland's strategic importance, the meeting's underlying tension was palpable.
Greenland, the world's largest island, is an autonomous territory of Denmark. It's six times the size of Germany and lies in the Arctic. At the Paris meeting, Denmark's Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, found herself in a delicate position, facing pressure from European colleagues not to antagonize the US over Greenland, lest it jeopardize US support for Ukraine.
European leaders aimed to keep Greenland and Ukraine separate, but with rising political tensions, the leaders of major European nations issued a statement declaring Greenland's place within Nato and the need for collective Arctic security. The statement emphasized that "it is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."
While Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens Frederik Nielsen, welcomed the communique, critics argue it was slow to materialize and failed to demonstrate a unified Europe due to limited signatories.
Camille Grande, Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment at Nato from 2016-22, and now with the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) think tank, commented: "Had there been a common statement from all 27 EU partners, plus Nato ally the UK, in support of Danish sovereignty, that would have sent a powerful message to Washington."
The irony of the Paris meeting was striking. European leaders, including those from Nato and the EU, were engaging with the Trump administration to safeguard the sovereignty of Ukraine against Russia's territorial ambitions, while the US had just intervened militarily in Venezuela and was actively threatening the sovereignty of Denmark.
To make matters worse, Denmark and the US are both members of Nato, and according to Copenhagen, extremely close allies. The question arises: if Trump were to succeed in bringing Greenland under US control, would it not only pose an existential threat to Nato but also trigger a major crisis for the EU?
Europe's Vulnerability
Trump's determination to control Greenland is not new. He's suggested buying it and even refused to rule out taking it by force. On Sunday, he emphasized Greenland's strategic importance, citing Russian and Chinese ships in the area, and the need for Greenland from a national security standpoint, questioning Denmark's ability to handle it.
Denmark refutes Trump's claims, having recently pledged a $4 billion investment in Greenland's defense, including boats, drones, and aircraft. The US already has a military base on Greenland under a bilateral agreement established during the Cold War, but with a reduced personnel presence.
Denmark has indicated openness to a larger US presence on the island, but faced with Trump's threat of unilateral action, Prime Minister Friederikson urged taking his ambition seriously. European officials, following the US administration's actions in Venezuela, are now doing just that.
An EU official, speaking anonymously, remarked: "This situation underlines Europe's fundamental weakness vis-a-vis Trump."
While Denmark's Nordic neighbors rushed to its defense after Trump's comments, there was initial silence from Europe's Big Three: London, Paris, and Berlin. Eventually, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed similar sentiments, and French President Emmanuel Macron visited Greenland in June to show solidarity with Copenhagen.
However, direct criticism of the US was notably absent.
This brings us to the heart of the matter. Trump's assertive tactics have made European allies nervous, leading them to manage the US president rather than confront him individually or collectively.
In this new era of Big Power Politics, where the US, China, Russia, and India dominate, Europe risks being sidelined and trampled underfoot.
The EU's Deference to Trump
Every year, the EU pledges to play a greater global role, but when it comes to Trump, it appears weak. Last year, the EU failed to fulfill its pledge to financially support Ukraine using frozen Russian state assets, opting for alternative funding sources. Critics argue the bloc missed an opportunity to send a strong message to both Moscow and the Trump administration, which has dismissed the EU as feeble.
In the realm of international trade, an area where the EU has long boasted its power, it has once again deferred to Trump. When he imposed 15% tariffs on EU goods, the bloc swallowed its pride and promised not to retaliate, fearing the loss of US support for security and defense.
Now, with Greenland and Denmark, EU countries are divided in their attitudes toward the Trump administration, and thus, their willingness to support Copenhagen.
Juliane Smith, the former US ambassador to Nato before Trump's re-election, warned that this situation "risks breaking the EU" and poses an existential dilemma for Nato.
Denmark's Prime Minister cautioned that US unilateral action over Greenland could shatter the NATO alliance.
Some may recall that Donald Trump has never been a big fan of the transatlantic alliance.
"Europe should take President Trump and his team seriously when they talk about 'getting' Greenland," Julianne Smith advised. "It's not just about urging restraint. Europe's leading powers should consider contingency planning, utilizing international meetings like the upcoming Munich Security Conference and Davos, and exploring bold defense pacts."
While Nato treaties do not distinguish between attacks from outside countries or fellow Nato allies, there is an understanding that Article 5, the alliance's all-for-one clause, does not apply to one Nato country attacking another.
Take, for instance, the strife between member states Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. In 1974, when Turkey invaded, Nato did not intervene, but the US, its most powerful member, mediated.
Denmark, one of Nato's smaller but active allies, finds itself in the shadow of the US, Nato's biggest and most powerful member.
The nervousness in Europe is palpable. While European powers issued a joint statement emphasizing Nato's role in Arctic security and Greenland's future being decided by Denmark and Greenland alone, the question remains: how far would the UK, France, Germany, and others go to guarantee Greenland's sovereignty?
"Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over Greenland's future," asserted the White House deputy chief of staff in a CNN interview.
Camille Grande of ECFR echoed the need for Europeans to reduce security dependencies on the US and speak with one voice.
Trump successfully pressured all Nato allies, except Spain, to massively increase defense spending last summer.
However, Europe remains heavily reliant on the US in areas like intelligence gathering, command and control, and air capabilities. Nato insiders reveal that even in closed-door meetings, European member states struggle to contemplate a US military move on Greenland.
They may have to face that reality soon.
