By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that a military attack by the United States on Greenland would result in the dissolution of the NATO alliance. Frederiksen emphasized the importance of taking President Trump’s interest in Greenland seriously. This statement comes amidst growing concerns in Copenhagen regarding Trump’s intentions, especially after the recent events in Venezuela. A U.S. military attack on a NATO member would effectively end the alliance and the security it provides.
Read the original article here
Denmark says U.S. attack on Greenland would mean the end of NATO, and honestly, that’s a pretty stark statement. Thinking about it, the implications of such an action are monumental. It’s almost like a carefully orchestrated plan, and if the U.S. were to take aggressive action against Greenland, it would trigger a chain reaction with consequences that would reshape the global landscape. The very foundations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would crumble.
If such a scenario were to unfold, it wouldn’t be a simple matter of a military disagreement. Article 5, the cornerstone of NATO, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, would be in serious jeopardy. The alliance, built on the principle of collective defense, would face an unprecedented test, and the response would determine its survival.
Of course, the United States is the strongest military force in the world, and many would hesitate to directly confront it. But the repercussions of an American attack on Greenland extend far beyond the immediate military situation. The relationships between European nations, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would be irrevocably altered, leading to a profound shift in geopolitical alliances. Canada, for instance, would be in a particularly difficult position, torn between its close ties with the United States and its commitment to Greenland and the values of its European allies.
Now, consider the potential fallout. If the U.S. were to take such an action, the immediate consequence would likely be the end of the NATO alliance. The European Union would likely have to forge a stronger defense pact without the United States. This would not be what the United States wants. The economic repercussions for the U.S. would be devastating, with trade relations severed and a potential economic depression looming. The U.S. would become isolated, losing access to global military bases and the ability to project power effectively.
The thought of such a scenario plays right into the hands of those who would like to see the weakening and dissolution of NATO. And given the past actions of certain leaders, the possibility of this is far from unthinkable. And let’s not forget the recent history of meetings and apparent cooperation between certain individuals and those associated with countries that would benefit most from the demise of NATO.
Think about the sheer number of U.S. bases and personnel scattered across Europe. What happens to them? Would they be asked to leave? Would they leave peacefully? The potential for conflict and the disruption of a carefully balanced world order is immense.
And we can’t ignore the economic ramifications. The end of NATO would likely lead to a collapse of the U.S. arms industry, as European nations would seek to protect their own interests. The loss of such a significant market would cripple the industry.
It’s also worth considering the reaction of the other NATO members. Would they stand by and watch the U.S. violate the sovereignty of another member? Would they invoke Article 5 and defend Greenland, even if it meant confronting the United States? The answers to these questions are far from clear, and the outcome could be a global catastrophe.
In the face of such a crisis, the only appropriate response from NATO is to stand firm. The response has to be robust, and it must be clear that an attack on Greenland is an attack on all. And if that is the case, it could very well mean expulsion of the U.S. from the alliance.
This whole scenario is truly frightening, and yet, it is the logical consequence of certain decisions. It is a moment that demands both strength and clarity. The time for diplomacy will have passed. The time for decisive action is upon us.