The fact that United States (US) President Donald Trump considered acquiring the territory of Greenland, belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member Kingdom of Denmark, has become the most concrete example of the decades-long transatlantic divide. This crisis could transform into the beginning of the formal disintegration process of NATO. The US, under Trump’s leadership, is on the verge of escalating the global power struggle in the Arctic to a dangerous dimension. Indeed, all of Europe harbors the concern that the Trump administration might take action for Greenland following its moves in Venezuela. Following the Venezuela example, the possibility of a US attack on Greenland or Iran has begun to be discussed as a likely scenario. However, the difference with Denmark-Greenland is that it is not an opposing axis country like Venezuela or Iran, but a member of NATO within the Western world itself.
Following Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, many European countries have decided to send troops to Greenland (although symbolically) to show their support for Denmark in line with the spirit of alliance, and this support is steadily growing. The countries that stand out in this regard are Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[1] In this context, the UK had served for decades as a mediator maintaining the transatlantic connection or as a bridge actor ensuring the preservation of the status quo. However, when the future of NATO is at stake, London’s path diverges from Washington’s. In essence, at this point, there may also be differing assessments within the US between the White House and other defense-security institutions. For instance, according to the Daily Mail, Trump instructed the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to prepare an operation plan for Greenland; however, the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed this, stating that such an operation would be illegal and lack Congressional approval.[2] Therefore, at the current stage, there are differing views within the American decision-making mechanisms, and discussions are ongoing.
Therefore, to draw a general picture, London’s disagreement is primarily with the White House. In this regard, what the United Kingdom can do in the coming days to save transatlantic ties is of great importance. Britain’s military support for Greenland signifies more than just a rupture in transatlantic relations; it also represents a sharp divergence and conflict between the two Anglo-Saxon actors. The UK announced its decision to send troops to Greenland, although symbolically, to demonstrate that Trump’s initiative is erroneous and to reaffirm its support for NATO. To protest Trump, an even larger step has come from France, where a draft resolution to initiate the process of withdrawing from NATO has been submitted to the National Assembly.[3] Trump’s move to acquire the territory of a fellow NATO member could accelerate the decoupling process of actors within the Alliance who seek to establish a European Army. France, which has been leading the efforts for the establishment of an independent European Army since the 1990s, may begin taking formal steps to realize this ambition.
Indeed, for the US to be able to target an actor from within NATO, it would first need to withdraw from this Alliance However, if the US Congress does not permit a withdrawal from NATO, European actors will begin to leave the organization themselves, as they could not remain in the same alliance with an ‘aggressor’ ally like the US. At this point, Trump’s plans regarding Greenland bring the future of NATO into question. he increased presence of Russia and China in the Arctic, which Trump cites as a justification, will not be seen by Europe as a legitimizing argument. Trump’s constantly emphasized claim that ‘Europeans cannot provide for their own security’ reinforces the idea of a European Army. Yet, there is still a great need for NATO from the European side. Therefore, at the current stage, European actors might opt to leave NATO not out of choice, but due to ‘compulsory’ reasons such as Trump attacking a European country. While Europe perceives Russia as the greatest ‘threat,’ a successful continental defense against Russia appears unlikely without US support.
The integration of the Western world and the formation of a united front against Russia and China are largely possible under the umbrella of NATO. In NATO’s Strategic Concept updated in 2022, China was referred to as a ‘systemic rival’ and was essentially presented as a target alongside Russia. Seeking to form a common front against China in the Asia-Pacific in addition to ensuring European security, the US invites European actors to the Asia-Pacific by utilizing transatlantic ties and particularly the UK as a bridge. From this perspective, the US needs strong transatlantic bonds, the UK, and ultimately, European actors. Europe might succeed in establishing its own army and thus protecting the continent without US support; however, it would not be easy for the US to be fully successful against China without the support of European actors. Therefore, mutual interests are at stake, and the sharing of duties and power is vital for the Western world. Within this power-sharing dynamic, European security is also in the interest of the US, and it is evident that the Greenland issue must be resolved through diplomacy.
The greatest danger here is the United States’ resort to a Carrot-and-Stick approach against European actors in order to acquire Greenland. The Trump administration consistently voices that it can employ numerous instruments against European countries, most notably high customs tariffs. Beyond this, the Trump administration demonstrated that it could leave Europe isolated by delaying the aid package to Ukraine for a considerable time. By rewarding Europe’s ‘good behavior’ and moving to punish ‘bad behavior,’ the Trump administration is capable of applying the carrot-and-stick method even against NATO allies. In this context, the United Kingdom stands out as the actor against whom the US cannot easily resort to the ‘stick.’ Consequently, the task of persuading the US for the sake of the future of Europe and NATO falls to the UK. It appears that these two actors will largely shape the future of the Western world in its struggle against Russia and China.
[1] “Germany Joins Canada, Sweden, and Other Nations in Sending Troops to Greenland as Trump Threats Intensify”, Yahoo, https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/germany-joins-canada-sweden-other-210454381.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 16.01.2025); “European nations send additional troops to Greenland as US annexation threats escalate”, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/15/world/europe-troops-greenland-trump-nato-intl-hnk, (Access Date: 16.01.2025).
[2] “Trump asked US special forces to plan Greenland invasion, faces resistance from military generals: Report”, First Post, https://www.firstpost.com/world/trump-asked-us-special-forces-to-plan-greenland-invasion-faces-resistance-from-military-generals-report-13967597.html, (Access Date: 16.01.2025).
[3] “France is proposing to consider leaving NATO.”, PRM, https://prm.ua/en/france-is-proposing-to-consider-leaving-nato/, (Access Date: 16.01.2025).
