Is it too late to save NATO from Trump?
Allies rush troops to Greenland in show of determination
The ashen look on their faces said it all.
The foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland met privately with Trump’s top officials this week to discuss Greenland’s future. Afterward, they emerged from the White House and walked slowly to a press conference podium to tell the world that both sides, “agreed to disagree.” Not good, but they will keep talking for now.
The Trump administration has shown no sign of backing down from the President’s assertion that he must control Greenland for the security of the continental U.S., and anything less is unacceptable.
He added ominously that the U.S. annexation of Greenland could be done the easy way, or the hard way.
Watch this video to learn more about the relationship between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland, produced by DW.
No one’s laughing anymore
Denmark, like Canada, initially took Trump’s ambitions for Greenland as a joke, but not anymore. Trump won’t rule out using military power to get what he wants.
Now the Danish Defense Intelligence Service is warning that the U.S. poses a threat. “The United States uses economic power, including in the form of threats of high tariffs, to enforce its will and no longer excludes the use of military force, even against allies,” it said, in a pointed reference to Washington trying to wrest control of Greenland from Denmark.
Is this the end of NATO?
The NATO military alliance famously threatens would-be adversaries that an attack against one member will bring a response from all.
But nobody seems to have considered what happens in the event of a military conflict between NATO members.
“If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
Allies and Canada rush troops to Greenland
A handful of NATO countries has quickly patched together a joint military mission for Greenland in response to Trump’s accusation that Greenland is under threat from Russia and China. Germany, Sweden, Norway and France have joined Danish forces in an operation dubbed Operation Arctic Endurance.
Some have wondered what threat Arctic Endurance is meant to address: a largely unsubstantiated Russian and Chinese threat – or the potential for U.S. military action (as incredible as it sounds). Officials say its the former.
Canada has reportedly sent troops to Greenland as well, although the Department of National Defence conspicuously does not mentioned the undertaking on its extensive list of current military missions.
Is it too late for NATO?
One has to wonder if a solution can be found, or whether the damage to the NATO has already been done.
One former NATO high-level staff member says Washington’s negative view of NATO has become entrenched. “President Trump’s dismissive views of allies as free riders who are trying to ‘screw’ the American taxpayer are now deeply ingrained in a large part of the American political system,” wrote Michael Rühle in 2024.
In a new analysis published by the U.S.-based defence industry report Defense News, Rühle blames NATO’s twin expansions – adding new former Soviet countries at the end of the Cold War, and taking on missions outside of Europe, such as Afghanistan and Libya, for undermining the alliance’s cohesiveness.
“The tragedy of NATO expansion lies not in beginning it, but in never considering when and where it might end,” he says.
If NATO falters, should we care?
Opposition to NATO has long been a central tenet of the peace movement and progressive political parties. The NDP had a policy of calling for Canada’s withdrawal from NATO for at least a generation, until it was dropped in the early 2000s.
For decades many peace groups have argued the NATO military alliance undermines the cooperative approach of the United Nations, is a U.S.-dominated stronghold masquerading as an international body of equals, overly depends upon nuclear weapons and their threatened use, and jeopardized the post-Cold War peace by expanding Eastward toward Russia.
Progressives dreamed of a day when nations would seek security through cooperation, diplomacy, and mutual understanding.
Only a few years ago, the International Peace Bureau, a 100+-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate organization, co-published a landmark paper on Common Security. How distant that feels now.
While NATO may be collapsing, I doubt many will celebrate because the alternative may be far worse, rather than far better, as we had always hoped.
Leave a comment to explain your vote
Readers want Canada to raise objections, strongly
Last week I asked you to answer the question, “How should Canada respond to Trump’s attack on Venezuela and threats on Greenland?”
Nearly half said Canada should condemn the U.S.’s violations of international law strongly (48%). Almost as many said we must build new alliances (38%). Few felt that Canada should pursue economic or military agendas, such as expanding trade or bolstering Arctic defences.
Here are some reader comments:
“Let the bully know that our lives can continue without our kowtowing to him.’ – S. Craig
“We need to think about ‘defence’ in new ways. Let’s build up our capacity for nonviolent defence.”- J. Slakov
“It is not that we don’t know what to do or how to implement it. We have just given over any power to act to those who most likely won’t use it.” - T. Dunn
“Relying on other allies (and supporting them) during “this period” is a good idea.” R. Collins
