By Matt Underwood The announcement that the protection of Greenland will be discussed within NATO, if needed, sparks a lot of thoughts, and frankly, a lot of skepticism. It immediately raises questions about the very nature of NATO, its purpose, and the potential threats to its core principles. The initial reaction is one of questioning the logic of addressing potential aggression against a territory like Greenland within the NATO framework, particularly when the perceived aggressor is a powerful member state – the United States. It’s almost absurd to consider a scenario where NATO, a defensive alliance, would need to discuss protecting a member’s territory from another member.
It’s crucial to acknowledge the deep-seated worry here. The fear that the United States, a long-standing ally and the de facto leader of NATO, could pose a threat to Greenland is a profound one. This isn’t just about territorial disputes; it’s about the erosion of trust, the questioning of shared values, and the unsettling realization that the global order might be shifting dramatically. The core problem is that if the United States truly becomes the aggressor, NATO, as it currently exists, is fundamentally incapable of acting as a defense. It seems like a lot of people believe the alliance is already defunct.
The focus should really be on Europe’s response, independent of NATO. If the European nations haven’t already had these discussions extensively, then it suggests a failure to assert true independence and global influence. Instead of relying on NATO to provide a solution, a new alliance or structure may be required, one that allows for cooperation but also gives Europe more agency and the means to defend its interests. It is not so much of what to do if the U.S. does invade but the question of what can be done when the United States is seen as a rogue nation by the world. It’s hard to ignore that the United States has the most powerful military, and it’s very hard to deny they are not being allies.
This potential threat to Greenland isn’t just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a reflection of deeper underlying issues. The fact that this scenario is even being considered speaks volumes about the current political climate. It suggests a decline in the traditional alliances and a growing uncertainty about the future of international relations. The question isn’t whether or not the United States is a threat, but the realization that it has turned its back on democracy. And what can be done.
What do you discuss? Well, the immediate need is to explicitly state that any territorial aggression against Greenland by any country will be regarded as an act of war, and then be proactive. This requires a shift in mindset and a willingness to confront a very uncomfortable reality. Instead of issuing strongly worded letters or just expressing concern, we need a proactive strategy. The United States has lost much of its “soft power” and many of its relationships, is it willing to risk everything in order to take a remote piece of land?
It’s worth noting the many implications this would have on the United States itself. The world would view the U.S. as bad guys in their own movies. If Trump, or someone else, were to act on Greenland, it would be catastrophic to the U.S. The potential fallout of invading a NATO member is hard to even conceptualize. It’s a very dangerous game the U.S. might be playing, and it needs a comprehensive response.
The situation in Greenland also highlights the need for European nations to reassess their dependence on the United States and consider building a more robust military capability, a common chain of command, and a unified response to any threat. The discussion is framed as something NATO needs to do but it’s clear the conversation that needs to be happening is elsewhere. A true discussion on defense should occur within Europe. If Trump, or someone else, were to act on Greenland, it would be catastrophic to the U.S. The potential fallout of invading a NATO member is hard to even conceptualize. It’s a very dangerous game the U.S. might be playing, and it needs a comprehensive response.