U.S. rhetoric sparks fears of alliance breakdown
U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to seize Venezuela’s president earlier this month has intensified concern in Europe that Washington is prepared to pursue far more aggressive foreign policy goals. Among them is Trump’s renewed insistence that the United States should annex Greenland, a self-governed territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
Shortly after the Venezuela operation, Trump openly stated that the United States “needs” Greenland for defense purposes. Senior officials echoed the message, framing the acquisition as a longstanding strategic objective tied to Arctic security and U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Threat to NATO’s core principles
European leaders and security experts warn that any attempt to take Greenland by force would strike at the heart of NATO’s collective defense principle. Denmark’s prime minister has said that an attack on Greenland would effectively end the alliance and dismantle the post-World War II security order.
Analysts argue that military action against a NATO member would render the alliance’s mutual defense clause meaningless, leaving NATO weakened and divided at a time when Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to test European security.
Strategic consequences for Europe and Ukraine
Experts say a U.S. move on Greenland would also benefit Moscow by reinforcing the idea that major powers can dominate their perceived spheres of influence. Such a precedent could undermine Western opposition to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and weaken Europe’s moral and strategic position.
Despite these risks, European leaders have largely avoided public confrontation with Washington, focusing instead on maintaining U.S. involvement in Ukraine and buying time to prepare for possible long-term shifts in transatlantic relations.
European options under discussion
Behind closed doors, European governments are debating responses ranging from diplomatic compromise to economic pressure and, in extreme scenarios, the deployment of allied troops to Greenland at Denmark’s request. The aim would be to raise the political and military cost of any unilateral U.S. action.
Others believe financial incentives and expanded European investment in Greenland could counter U.S. influence by strengthening local autonomy and economic resilience, reducing the appeal of closer alignment with Washington.
Why Greenland matters
Greenland’s strategic value lies in its Arctic location, growing importance as polar sea routes open, and its rich mineral resources. While security is the stated justification, economic interests tied to shipping lanes, energy access, and rare minerals are also seen as major drivers behind U.S. interest.
As Arctic competition intensifies, Europe faces a difficult balancing act: deterring escalation, preserving NATO unity, and preventing a precedent that could reshape global power politics.
