Trump, Greenland, and NATO

Trump is threatening a NATO ally over Greenland. Can the alliance survive that? Should it?

The news that incoming American president Donald Trump will not rule out using military force in his quest to acquire control over Greenland is music to my ears. Not because I think Greenland should be American, or that its people would be better off under American rule. Not even because I enjoy seeing the Danes struggle as much as the next guy. But because it is another piece of evidence supporting my thesis on the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. Less than a year after Sweden joined NATO the US has threatened a treaty ally with military force with the goal of illegally expanding its territory. Lousy timing.

NATO was designed for another time, one which does not and has not existed for literal decades. When I heard about Trump’s threat I immediately thought to look up the famous article 5 which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. I knew that there are limits to where article 5 applies, listed in article 6, and wondered if Greenland would be covered. Remarkably, it is covered, and more remarkably still according to the original treaty text so too was the French départements in Algeria: “[…] on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France”. To be fair, NATO did modify the treaty in 1963 to acknowledge Algeria’s independence. But the point still stands, NATO was made for a time when Congo was a Belgian colony, when the US occupied Japan, and when the border between East and West was in Thuringia rather than in the Donbass.

The world can change drastically in a few short years. Consider how Covid upended the world, and how our institutions and attitudes have changed as a result. The changes since 1949 are immense, and we would not expect any other tenant of international relations to hold since then, so why should NATO? The liberal and Americophile dream of an alliance of democracies fighting the good fight is a noble one. But it is just that, a dream.

If there is one thing you can always count on Trump to do, it is to be frank. He may not be the world’s sharpest policy mind, or its most gifted rhetorician, but he straightforwardly says what he means. And if you cannot even get the US, the leader of NATO to play along with the fantasy that the alliance is healthy and relevant, why should the rest of us bother?

There is plenty of room and appetite for an anti-Russian alliance in 2025, and there is both room and appetite for an anti-China alliance too. But if you assume tabula rasa you would not invite all the current NATO members to a new anti-Russian alliance; it just does not make sense to do so. If NATO officially disbands or functionally collapses it would free up both the intellectual space required to dream up current constellations for a European defence alliance and the diplomatic maneuvering room to actually pursue it. The US under Trump does not seem constrained by NATO, so why should the rest of the members treat it almost religiously. Alliances are always temporary marriages of convenience; and now NATO is no longer convenient. Apparently not to the US, so therefore definitely not to the other members.

If you liked this post you can read a previous post about my predictions for the year to come here or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!

---

I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.

Written by Karl Johansson

---

Cover photo by Ben Macherey from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson