By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Greenland’s government announced plans to bolster Arctic defense efforts within NATO’s framework, reiterating its rejection of any U.S. acquisition of the island. This follows President Trump’s expressed interest in purchasing the strategically important territory, citing concerns about potential Russian or Chinese occupation. The Greenlandic government emphasized the shared defense interests of all NATO members, including the United States, in safeguarding the region. A European Union official warned that a U.S. takeover would undermine the alliance.
Read the original article here
Greenland says it should be defended by NATO, a sentiment that feels incredibly relevant right now. The whole situation has a surreal quality, almost as if we’re witnessing a plot twist in a spy thriller. Allies should be… allies, it’s that simple. It seems that Greenland’s position is clear: they want the security that NATO provides, and frankly, who could blame them?
Greenland’s potential activation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a serious consideration. This essentially means that if Greenland is attacked, it would be the second time in history that it could trigger a collective defense response from all member states. The implications are enormous. Imagine a scenario where a NATO ally is facing aggression, and the response is not just diplomatic hand-wringing but a united military front. This highlights the core purpose of the alliance.
The idea of European countries swiftly moving troops to Greenland is a practical one. And consider the political gamesmanship that could be involved. Some might even publicly frame it as a move to support certain political figures, like suggesting it’s to help secure Greenland as part of Trump’s agenda, for example. The fact is, that is something Putin would be quietly pleased about.
However, the consequences of such a move are far-reaching. The potential for a disaster that would impact everyone, especially those involved. The very thought of this makes me wonder about the military, about veterans. I can only imagine how it may feel to be a soldier facing an order that might put you against your own allies.
If something were to happen, then NATO troops in Greenland, drawn from various member nations, is something that would need to occur. The details of which nations would be involved, and how the logistics would play out, are important but secondary to the principal of the matter.
Then you have to consider Greenland’s position, and their desire to not identify as Danish. While understandable, this approach, especially given the geopolitical landscape, seems unwise. It would be akin to removing their protection from the rest of the world. Greenland’s future and their security are intrinsically linked to their relations with Denmark and NATO.
Greenland does not have the capacity to maintain a credible military. This is the truth of the situation. It relies on the protection of Denmark. The idea of an independent Greenland without a military, and relying on NATO protection, raises many questions.
One train of thought that is interesting, is the idea of isolating the United States through trade bans and flight restrictions if they were to try and occupy Greenland. It’s hard to imagine, but it’s a valid consideration. The economic disruption would be enormous, but might be necessary if the principle of collective defense is to have any meaning.
The underlying motivations for this, of course, might not be as transparent as they seem. The idea that a country like the US would want to occupy a NATO country to prevent Russia or China from gaining a foothold just doesn’t make sense. Could the real goal be to weaken, if not dismantle, NATO itself? It’s a scary thought.
The potential for conflict with America is what weighs heavily on the minds of many. And then there’s the economic fallout. The disruption to the housing market is a joke amidst what could be the beginning of a truly massive global conflict. Building joint bases and defending them is exactly what was done during the Cold War.
Some feel the whole situation boils down to resources. It’s about the minerals and strategic location. The idea of the US occupying a NATO member, or even trying to, is an existential threat to the alliance.
The question of whether NATO would defend Greenland, and the specifics of how that would play out, is a matter of intense discussion. The US would be invading a country with a defensive alliance with a nuclear-armed military. The possibility of mutually assured destruction cannot be ignored.
The role of the United States itself within NATO is coming under scrutiny. Are they part of the team? Or are they the threat? If the United States were to attack Greenland, the implications for the international order and the U.S.’s role in it would be dire.
The possibility of economic destruction is very real. Any attempt by the U.S. to take over Greenland would cause a serious economic crisis, the USD’s status would be jeopardized. The US’s actions would not be supported by their allies, especially given that many of them hold US treasury bonds.
The military’s response is the key to all of this. What if the generals refuse to carry out orders they consider to be treasonous? The potential of Article 5 being used is something to consider.
Greenland’s statement that they “aren’t Danish” adds a layer of complexity. If they don’t see themselves as Danish, and the US is eyeing Greenland, then what’s to stop the U.S. from taking them over, for example? It’s easy to see how this can be misinterpreted.
If the U.S. were to invade Greenland, the world will stand up and take notice. The reaction would be swift. The economic consequences would be significant. And for the U.S. to do such a thing would create an unimaginable mess.
The world needs the US to act in a responsible manner. Every country in the EU should mobilize troops to Greenland, and now. This should include whatever is needed.
The situation in Greenland forces us to confront some uncomfortable truths about the world. It calls into question the very idea of national security and the alliances that are meant to protect it.
Perhaps this whole situation is another piece of a larger puzzle. Putin’s plan to break up NATO. It highlights how important it is to be a member of an alliance, and it’s important to have others back you up. And, if a member goes rogue, then you have to do what you must.