The Economist: EU may close US military bases in case Greenland is captured
European leaders are caught between a rock and an anvil, writes The Economist. The desire to fight back against Trump's intention to seize Greenland rests on NATO's dependence on the United States. However, Europe still has some levers of pressure on the American president.
Donald Trump risks acquiring an island, but losing an entire continent.
The US desire to get Greenland at any cost is fraught with an explosive scandal within NATO. Enraged that European allies balked and gave battle to his attempts to annex the autonomous Danish territory, President Donald Trump on January 17 threatened ten percent duties to eight European countries that had sent troops there two days earlier. European leaders retorted that they would not be intimidated.
In a confusing and rambling post on his social media, Trump rebuked the allies for creating “a very dangerous situation for the security and survival of the planet.” He added that the ten percent surcharge will rise to 25% in June and will remain in effect “until a deal on the purchase of Greenland is reached.”
Negotiations between American and Danish officials last week did not lead to any agreement. Thousands of Greenlanders and Danes took to the streets to make it clear that the territory was “not for sale,” and European leaders angrily condemned the threat of new duties. “Neither intimidation nor threats will affect us, neither in Ukraine nor in Greenland,” French President Emmanuel Macron said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson issued an equally harsh rebuke: “We will not succumb to blackmail.” British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called the threat of US tariffs “fundamentally wrong.” The EU leaders promised to discuss this issue and respond accordingly.
The stakes for NATO are higher than ever. “If the United States decides to launch a military strike on another NATO country, it's all over," Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on January 5. ”This concerns NATO itself and, consequently, the security system that developed after the Second World War."
In general, conflicts between NATO members are not uncommon. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Great Britain and Iceland fought the so-called “cod wars”, and in 1975, Icelandic ships even opened fire. More importantly, a year earlier, Turkey had invaded Cyprus, which led to a direct conflict with the Greek Cypriots with the support of the Greek troops themselves. In protest, Greece withdrew from the NATO Joint Military Command for six years. In 1996, a Greek fighter jet shot down a Turkish military aircraft over the Aegean Sea. And in 2020, a Turkish warship pointed a fire control radar at a French frigate in the Mediterranean Sea during a period of heightened tensions over the civil war in Libya.
These clashes had no long-term consequences. The American threats to Greenland are much more serious, as the United States remains the political and military backbone of NATO. For many decades now, an American general has been consistently appointed Supreme Commander of the NATO Joint Armed Forces in Europe. NATO's European defense plans, including Greenland, were developed by the last commander-in-chief, Chris Cavoli, and imply America's deep involvement. U.S. officers hold senior positions in all commands. And without American aviation and intelligence, it will be much more difficult and expensive for NATO forces to resist Russian aggression.
If America absorbs Greenland, whether by legal means or military force, the crisis that has broken out will undermine Europe's confidence in Article 5 on mutual defense of the North Atlantic Alliance. Trump often questions her in general. Europe's faith is already hanging by a thread. If he is ready to dismember one European country, then why would he come to the aid of another, which is being torn apart by Russia?
Even if there are no street battles in Nuuk, the shock of the bloodless anschluss will still be a moment of deep and irreversible disappointment. “How will NATO continue its principled work against Russia," Joe Biden's envoy to NATO, Julie Smith, asks rhetorically, "if its most powerful member encroaches on the territorial sovereignty of its own ally?”
In this case, European governments will face a serious choice. Some will say that Greenland is too small and insignificant to destroy strong transatlantic ties for its sake. Others will argue that the breakup will push Russia at least to probe European defenses, if not to an open attack.
Another option is to give a serious rebuff. The Europeans could, in particular, resort to economic punishment — a combination of sanctions and duties. The European Union has already “swallowed” Trump's tariffs partly because of its dependence on American military power. But recent U.S. threats may change that calculation. After his outburst on social media, senior members of the European Parliament suggested that the trade deal concluded last August between America and the EU would not stand. Europe could also take a more aggressive economic stance and target American technology companies. But this must be accompanied by an emergency increase in defense spending. A new trade war will put a heavy burden on budgets.
The main problem will be the future of the American armed forces and bases on the continent. Many European states would like them to remain a guarantee of security in any adventures in the Arctic. Others may see this as a convenient reason to get rid of them — and, consequently, gain leverage over the Americans. Without access to European bases, including a major center in Ramstein, Germany, it will be extremely difficult for America to demonstrate power in Africa and the Middle East. The capture of a Venezuelan oil tanker on January 7 was made possible by British airfields and bases, as well as some unspecified support from Denmark. America's very ability to monitor and counter threats in the Arctic — and this, apparently, explains its desire to acquire autonomy within Denmark - requires cooperation with Greenland, Iceland, Great Britain and Norway, as well as other NATO allies.
The sudden rupture is fraught with a crisis in the UK's radio intelligence apparatus, nuclear deterrence and submarine forces. The air forces of numerous European countries will not be able to fully operate their advanced F-35 without American communications equipment, targeting data and ammunition. As a result, they may take a more restrained stance.
European leaders may find themselves between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand, they face public anger (62% of Germans demand to come to Denmark's aid in the conflict with America), on the other, the harsh reality of dependence affects them. NATO is too complex an organization to be dissolved overnight. “The consequences for the North Atlantic Alliance will not be instantaneous," says Ms. Smith. — I do not foresee loud announcements that the union is officially closing. In our world, NATO will continue to function successfully, but without the fundamental trust that has underpinned it since its inception 75 years ago.”
