Greenland Crisis: NATO's "Internal Enemy" and the Restructuring of Arctic Geopolitics
14/01/2026
Greenland Crisis: NATO's "Internal Enemy" and the Restructuring of Arctic Geopolitics
A closed-door meeting in Washington, D.C. sent an unprecedented chill through the entire transatlantic security system. In [Month] [Year], the foreign ministers of Denmark, Greenland, and the United States met in Washington. While the agenda ostensibly focused on Arctic security cooperation, the meeting was in reality a tense contest over Greenland's sovereignty. U.S. President Donald Trump's declaration, "We will get Greenland one way or another," is no longer dismissed by European allies as political bluster, but is seen as a clear strategic signal with the potential to fracture NATO.
When NATO's greatest protector begins to covet the territory of its allies, this security alliance—born during the Cold War and built on the cornerstone of collective defense—is forced for the first time to confront a paradoxical threat: the threat comes from within, from the very nation that was supposed to provide the ultimate security guarantee. The warning from Amida van Rij, a researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies, hits the nail on the head: "If one ally violates the sovereignty of another without legal grounds, that is the end of the alliance."
An imminent sovereign crisis
Greenland, the world's largest island with a population of only 56,000, has long been an autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. Its strategic value has been dramatically amplified against the backdrop of climate warming and intensifying geopolitical competition. Melting ice is opening up new Arctic shipping routes, while its seabed harbors rare earth minerals urgently needed for smartphones, electric vehicles, and the defense industry. This frozen land has already become a new chessboard in the great power game.
The logic of the Trump administration is straightforward and uncompromising. The President himself openly mocked Greenland's defense as "basically relying on two dog sleds" and claimed that if the United States did not seize control, Russia or China would. This rhetoric directly links security concerns with territorial expansion, with its core being the **Arctic projection of a "sphere of influence" mindset**. As Van Rij analyzed, the Trump administration acted with impunity in the Western Hemisphere, its "own backyard," and is now attempting to transplant the same logic to the Arctic.
However, Greenland is not a terra nullius. It is part of Denmark, a founding member of both NATO and the European Union. The United States maintains a large airbase at Thule in Greenland, and under the defense agreement signed in 1951 and revised in 2004, the U.S. military enjoys extensive operational freedom on the island. The issue has never been about the U.S. presence in Greenland, but rather the legal and political form that presence would take. What Trump wanted was not a lease or enhanced cooperation, but a **"title deed"**—an outright territorial annexation.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s response represents Europe’s collective fear and bottom line: "If the United States chooses to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything will stop... including our NATO." This statement lays bare the essence of the crisis: this is not ordinary friction among allies, but a direct challenge to the very foundation of NATO’s existence—the fundamental principle of mutual non-violation of territorial integrity among allies.
NATO's Survival Paradox: When Article 5 Encounters Internal Aggression
NATO's authority is founded on Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: an attack against one ally is considered an attack against all allies. This collective defense clause has been invoked only once in history, in support of the United States following the 9/11 attacks. It was originally designed to counter external threats and was never intended to address aggression from within the alliance, especially from its leader.
Analysis reveals that this is precisely the institutional deadlock of the current crisis. Article 5 would be completely ineffective in a US-Denmark conflict, because activating it requires unanimous consent from all member states, and the United States itself would never agree to initiate collective defense against itself. Similarly, Article 4 (the consultation clause) can only provide a platform for diplomatic discussion and cannot automatically generate any binding action. There is simply no ready-made toolbox within the NATO mechanism to handle "internal aggression." Analysis reveals that this is precisely the institutional deadlock of the current crisis. Article 5 would be completely ineffective in a US-Denmark conflict, because activating it requires unanimous consent from all member states, and the United States itself would never agree to initiate collective defense against itself. Similarly, Article 4 (the consultation clause) can only provide a platform for diplomatic discussion and cannot automatically generate any binding action. There is simply no ready-made toolbox within the NATO mechanism to handle "internal aggression."
This institutional gap exposes the deep-seated asymmetrical dependencies within NATO. The United States contributes approximately % of the alliance's defense spending, and its nuclear umbrella serves as the ultimate guarantee for European security. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius acknowledged that protecting Greenland and Arctic shipping routes aligns with the interests of the entire NATO alliance, but all steps must be closely coordinated with Denmark and cannot "go against the will of the United States." This nuanced statement subtly reveals Europe's predicament: even when defending its own sovereignty, it remains unable to break free from its military dependence on the United States.
Europe's sense of powerlessness is real. Van Rij admitted, "If the United States were to seize Greenland by military means, Europe would be powerless to stop it." This imbalance of power allows the United States to play the role of a "bully," while Europe seems to have no choice but to "put on a brave face." An EU diplomat involved in the Brussels discussions described Europe's mindset as "grave" and "fearful," while another called the moment "seismic," as it signifies that the United States is prepared to tear apart a century-old ironclad relationship.
Europe's Difficult Response: From Appeasement Plans to the Awakening of Strategic Autonomy
Faced with an imminent crisis, European leaders are scrambling to find a way out in a state of panic. Their primary goal is to avoid military conflict and preserve NATO. Behind the scenes, the outline of an "appeasement-style deal" is beginning to take shape. According to multiple EU diplomats and officials, a possible solution involves "cleverly repackaging" Arctic security, critical minerals, and the need for Trump to claim a domestic victory.
Option One: Security in Exchange for Sovereignty. European allies significantly increase investment in Arctic security and take on more defense responsibilities to address Trump's long-standing complaint about "Europe free-riding." NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has paved the way for this, stating that allies are discussing ways to enhance Arctic security, including increasing naval patrols and joint exercises. Pistorius also proposed "demonstrating presence" through surveillance and patrols. This essentially involves Europe spending money and effort to strengthen NATO's presence in Greenland in exchange for the United States abandoning annexation.
Option Two: Resources for Peace. Grant the United States priority or profit-sharing rights in Greenland's critical mineral mining. The European Union plans to more than double its investment in Greenland in its next long-term budget, with part of the funds allocated to critical raw material projects. This could serve as bait to attract the U.S. to accept a joint investment agreement. However, Denmark has been offering the U.S. opportunities to invest in Greenland for years, all of which have been rejected. If Trump's goal were truly resources, he would have had the chance long ago.
Option Three: Driven by Historical Legacy. Some diplomats suspect that Trump's true goal may be to secure a place in history, transforming "Make America Great Again" from a slogan into a geographical concept, becoming the president who "Made America's Territory Greater." If so, any deal that does not involve territorial changes would be unlikely to satisfy his core demands.
The core logic of these proposals is trading substantive interests for legal vanity, allowing Trump to claim a propagandistic victory while preserving Denmark's sovereignty and the NATO framework. However, this is fraught with risks. It could set a dangerous precedent where powerful nations can extract excessive benefits by threatening allies. Six countries, including France and Germany, have issued a joint statement supporting Denmark and Greenland, demonstrating internal European unity. Yet, how much practical leverage this unity can translate into in the face of the overwhelming might of the U.S. military remains unknown.
At a deeper level, this crisis is forcing Europe to "think the unthinkable"—a post-American security architecture. Analysis from the Centre for European Policy Studies points out that the Trump administration has signaled that the United States is not fully bound by collective defense. This is driving Europe to reassess its security policies. The divide between France, which advocates for "strategic autonomy," and countries that rely entirely on U.S. security has become more pronounced during this crisis. Is Europe politically and militarily prepared to shoulder such responsibility alone? The answer is clearly no, but the process of thinking has already begun.
The Permanent Transformation of the Geopolitical Landscape in the Arctic
Regardless of how the Greenland crisis concludes, the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic has been permanently altered. NATO is now focusing on this once-marginalized region with unprecedented intensity. Rutte explicitly stated that Arctic defense is a "priority" for NATO, as seven of the eight Arctic states are NATO members (the United States, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden), with Russia being the only non-member, while China has also become a "near-Arctic state" due to its extensive activities.
Russia's military buildup in the Arctic has been ongoing for years, while China continues to expand its presence through the "Polar Silk Road" and scientific research investments. The melting ice has opened up the Northern Sea Route, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, whose strategic value is no less than that of traditional maritime chokepoints. Pistorius highlighted the key point: protecting the sea lanes in the North Atlantic between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom is crucial, as these routes could be used to "isolate America from Europe" during times of conflict. Therefore, Arctic security has escalated from a regional issue to a core survival issue for the transatlantic alliance.
The latest developments from the Greenland government confirm this trend. Faced with the threat of annexation, Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, instead of seeking complete independence or relying solely on Denmark, has turned to NATO. He announced that he would "strive to ensure the development of Greenland's and its surrounding defense through dialogue with allies (including the United States) and cooperation with Denmark, closely coordinated within the NATO framework." This effectively embeds Greenland more deeply into NATO's collective defense system, using a multilateral framework to counterbalance the ambitions of a single nation—a strategy that reflects the wisdom of a small nation navigating survival among giants.
From a broader perspective, the Greenland incident is a microcosm of the accelerating erosion of the rules-based order established after World War II. From U.S. military operations in Venezuela to tensions with Iran, and even to the overt coveting of allies' territories, unilateral actions and the logic of "might makes right" are undermining international norms. Van Rij believes that Europe must strengthen cooperation with like-minded countries such as Canada, Japan, and Australia to counterbalance this trend. "Europe must create a force to challenge the notion that 'the strongest is always right.' This is not in our interest."
The Greenland crisis acts as a prism, refracting the profound fractures in transatlantic relations and the turbulence within the global power structure. The questions it raises are far more fundamental than "who controls Greenland": How can an alliance survive when its leader becomes the greatest source of uncertainty for the security of its members? Can relationships built on shared values and interests withstand the impact of naked power politics and the desire for territorial acquisition?
Europe's response, whether it be meticulously designed transactional plans or bitter reflections on strategic autonomy, reveals a profound sense of powerlessness. They attempt to address a player determined to rewrite the rules through negotiations under the old framework. In the short term, a diplomatic compromise may avert the most catastrophic military conflict, allowing NATO to linger on.
However, in the long run, the Greenland incident has shaken the foundation of trust within the alliance. It has sent a chilling message to every NATO member state, especially those small and medium-sized nations reliant on U.S. security guarantees: in the face of a great power's absolute interests, the sovereignty of allies and the promises of treaties may prove fragile. This erosion of trust is structural and cannot be fully repaired by a mere agreement on paper.
The Arctic, this melting frontier, has become the forefront where the old and new world orders collide. Here, the physical reality of climate change intertwines with the geopolitical logic of great power competition. The fate of Greenland will not only determine the future of NATO but also foreshadow whether an international system with fewer rules, more power politics, and increasingly utilitarian and fragile alliances is becoming a reality. Europe and the United States are writing the final chapter of the post-Cold War security architecture on the Arctic ice—whether they themselves are ready to accept this outcome or not.
Reference materials
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-greenland-donald-trump-deal-nato-friedrich-merz/
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2026-01/groenland-arktis-nato-schutz-boris-pistorius
https://yle.fi/a/7-10091218?origin=rss
http://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/01/12/watch-trump-vs-greenland-what-will-he-choose-to-do
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/how-nato-works-at-a-time-of-trumps-greenland-threats/