A stark warning has been issued that any US military action to seize control of Greenland would almost certainly spell the end of the NATO alliance in its current form. The analysis comes amid renewed strategic interest in the vast Arctic island from Washington.
Why Greenland is a US Security Priority
President Donald Trump is not the first American leader to show interest in securing Greenland, the world's largest island. The US occupied it during the Second World War when Denmark was under German control and was reluctant to leave afterwards. Both nations later joined NATO in 1949, and a 1951 treaty legally obliges the US to defend Greenland, a relationship cemented by the establishment of the Thule Air Base, now called Pituffik Space Base, in 1953.
According to analysis, the United States has three core reasons for viewing Greenland as vital to its national security:
First, ballistic missile early warning. Due to the Earth's curvature, the shortest flight path for missiles between Russia and the US passes over Greenland. Tracking and potentially intercepting such threats requires capability on Greenlandic territory.
Second, control of new Arctic trade routes. Global warming is opening up the Northern Sea Route and North West Passage. Shipping from Europe to Japan via these routes cuts the journey from 13,000 to 6,000 miles, making ensuring freedom of passage a key US security concern.
Finally, vast natural resources. Greenland is estimated to hold considerable mineral wealth, including uranium, and around 50 billion barrels of oil and gas, though its hostile climate has hindered extraction.
The Military Option: High Stakes for NATO
Analysts have outlined the potential avenues the US could take to secure its interests. While negotiation for an expanded military presence is possible, and a purchase was attempted in 1946 for $100 million (about $1.3bn today), the military option has been discussed.
Militarily, the US already has a presence on the island, while Greenland has no national military. Denmark, responsible for Greenland's defence, would be unable to counter US aggression.
"At face value, if President Trump is determined to secure Greenland, the military option is probably the least risky option," said Sky News military analyst Sean Bell. "But in attacking a fellow NATO member it would almost certainly mark the end of NATO in its current form."
A Looming European Security Crisis
Such an unprecedented action would not just dissolve the transatlantic alliance but would also plunge European nations into a profound security dilemma. With the existing threat from Russia, the collapse of the NATO security guarantee would leave many countries vulnerable and force a complete re-evaluation of continental defence.
The historical precedent of US interest, combined with the island's growing strategic and economic value in an opening Arctic, sets the stage for one of the most delicate geopolitical challenges facing the Western alliance.
