Donald Trump is issuing increasingly alarming threats about seizing control of Greenland, a move analysts fear could precipitate the collapse of the NATO military alliance. The US President's long-stated desire to claim the semi-autonomous Danish territory has escalated dramatically in recent months, moving from a purchase offer in 2019 to overt intimidation.
Experts Sound the Alarm on Alliance Survival
Two leading security experts have detailed to Metro the catastrophic implications for the transatlantic alliance. Jason Pack, host of the Disorder Podcast and Senior Analyst for Emerging Challenges at the NATO Defence College Foundation, characterised Trump's approach as bullying for media distraction. "You cannot make threats against a core NATO ally and a pillar of international law like Denmark," Pack stated. "I take the threat seriously because Trump usually tells us what he wants to do, and he wants Greenland."
However, Pack doubts a physical invasion is feasible, questioning whether the US would risk killing Danish troops or mounting a hostile occupation. He views the rhetoric as "sabre-rattling" and a manipulation tactic, where appearing as a "complete sociopath" might succeed in coercing European nations.
Eerie Parallels to Putin's Ukraine Gamble
Keir Giles, a Russia expert at Chatham House, presented a stark comparison. He said the world now finds itself in a position chillingly similar to December 2021, when diplomats dismissed the logic of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.
"They said Putin could get everything that he wants from Ukraine without risking a stupid and obviously catastrophic military intervention," Giles explained. "And yet, none of that mattered because... it was the ideology that drove it. In this case, with Trump, we have the same situation."
Giles argues that appeals to Trump about damaging NATO, breaching international law, and disrupting the transatlantic alliance hold "demonstrably no significance" to the current US leadership, which seems to "delight in leaving Europeans aghast."
Would NATO Members Stand Firm?
The critical question is how the alliance would respond. While former US lawmakers insist the military would not follow blatantly illegal orders, Giles counters that recent US behaviour shows "Americans with guns have shown themselves perfectly willing to commit murder on behalf of the regime." He also notes Congress has failed to obstruct Trump's most outrageous demands.
Jason Pack sees the crisis as a leadership test for Europe. "The real opportunity here is for Europeans to stand up and say, 'This is unacceptable.'" He suggests that if all NATO countries united to defend Denmark's territorial integrity, it could force a US backtrack and reassert international order. However, he expressed doubt about leaders like Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron providing that decisive alternative leadership, citing Starmer's domestic challenges.
Giles fears European nations, facing their own security dilemmas, may choose not to oppose the US militarily to protect themselves, even if it means "compromising all of the ideals they are seeking to defend." The ultimate beneficiary of such a rupture, he states unequivocally, would be Russia, for whom NATO's potential destruction is the "greatest gift that the Trump White House has yet offered to Moscow."
