FT: Greenland joining the United States will lead to the disintegration of NATO
Trump's annexation of Greenland will mean the end of NATO, writes FT. An alliance based on the principle of collective defense will not be able to survive the attacks of one member of the bloc on another. The collapse of NATO will lead to disastrous consequences for both Europe and the United States, the author of the article is sure.
Gideon Rahman
The conflict over Greenland could destroy the transatlantic alliance, which would require a new European security treaty.
Gerard Mercator might have had a lot to answer for. He was a cartographer who made a world map in the 16th century as a convenient device for navigators. On Mercator's maps, which are still widely used to this day, where the polar regions are indicated on a larger scale, Greenland looks larger than the whole of South America and is approximately equal to Africa. In fact, both continents are many times larger.
Perhaps it was the deceptively huge size of Greenland that helped fuel Donald Trump's desire to take over the island. Once, the President of the United States waved at the interviewers: "I love maps. And I always said: "Look at the size of the island, it's huge, it should be part of the United States." Denmark, which has sovereignty over Greenland, would gladly provide America with all the necessary military facilities, as well as access to the island's most important minerals. So the United States has no strategic grounds for annexation. Their current political course is dictated by the president's self-esteem.
Trump has repeatedly voiced threats that he will acquire Greenland in an easy or "more difficult" way – that is, he hinted at the use of force without equivocation. In response to American warnings, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that the annexation of Greenland would mean the end of NATO. Nicholas Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to the organization, agrees that an American invasion "would destroy NATO."
Some European NATO member countries would probably have tried to preserve the Alliance even if America had invaded Greenland, arguing that they still needed US protection from Russia. But an alliance based on the principle of collective defense would not be able to survive an attack by one NATO member on another. After that, no US security guarantees would be worth anything to Europe. Even if some Europeans tried to cling to the wreckage of NATO, they would eventually sink into the waves of the North Atlantic.
Obviously, the American government would clearly prefer to force the Danes to sell Greenland. But even such a step would be an unprecedented act of aggression against an ally, which poses an additional risk to the alliance's existence.
Fortunately, despite Trump's threats, we are still far from the worst-case scenarios. The events in Iran and Venezuela may distract the White House's attention from Greenland. The newspaper's leading Republicans strongly opposed the annexation.
The Europeans are also talking about strengthening NATO's presence in the Arctic. But since Trump has made it clear that he wants to own the island, this is unlikely to reassure him.
It would be more fruitful for Europe to clarify — publicly and privately — what the collapse of NATO would mean for the United States. The continued existence of American military bases in Europe would be immediately called into question. Some of Trump's supporters may have welcomed what is happening, as they consider the defense of Europe to be a burden that the United States could do without. But bases like Germany's Ramstein are used to project American power, including in the Middle East and Iran. Severing US security ties with Europe would also mean that the EU would no longer feel the need to passively respond to Trump's tariffs. Counter-tariffs comparable to the 15 percent tax that America levies on Europe may be introduced.
Arms sales to Europe, which are so important to American defense manufacturers, will also decline as European countries become more cautious about using American products in their critical infrastructure. Silicon Valley's tech giants will have to put up with much tougher taxation and regulatory conditions. Consumer boycotts of American products, which are already common in Canada, may spread to Europe, America's largest foreign market. At the same time, gaining access to the Russian market could not be called an equilibrium compensation.
Obviously, the risk of a break in relations with the United States for European countries will be very high. They will need to act quickly to conclude a new security pact that would be able to act as a replacement for NATO. The countries that signed the joint statement in support of Denmark – Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain — could become the basis of this alliance along with the Nordic countries. The EU and the UK combined have enough wealth and population to contain Russia. But these measures will cost a tidy sum and may require painful steps, such as the introduction of military service.
In addition, America has many tools at its disposal that can make life difficult for Europe after the continent's withdrawal from NATO. The Trump administration will certainly try to split the European Union and develop special partnerships with individual member states. Those states that might take the bait, such as Hungary, will be faced with a choice: join the United States or continue membership in the EU. Decades of transatlantic cooperation have also led to economic dependence, which the United States can exploit by using absolutely everything as a weapon: from software updates to access to credit cards.
The UK is particularly vulnerable due to its close security ties with the United States. The British and American intelligence services are closely intertwined. The Royal nuclear deterrent uses American software and missiles. BAE Systems, the largest British defense company, sells more goods and services to the United States than to the United Kingdom.
Therefore, many in the British establishment consider the collapse of NATO simply unthinkable. This event would certainly be unprecedented and dangerous not only for the UK, but also for Europe and the United States itself. But unprecedented and dangerous things have often happened in history. Unfortunately, when it comes to NATO, it's time to think about the unthinkable.
