By John Q. Hosedrinker 
European Union officials are publicly supporting Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s stance on the potential ramifications of a U.S. attack on another NATO country, a position shared privately by EU diplomats. Frederiksen stated that a military attack on a NATO ally by the U.S. would effectively end the alliance. This statement contrasts with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s assertion that the alliance is not in crisis. Amidst this, former U.S. President Donald Trump, when questioned about prioritizing Greenland over NATO, did not directly answer but suggested a potential choice between the two.
Read the original article here
NATO ends if Trump invades Greenland, EU commissioner warns, and the implications ripple outwards like the shockwave from a geopolitical explosion. The simple act of a US invasion of Greenland, an ally, could be the trigger that unravels the entire alliance. The core of the concern, frankly, is that this is exactly what certain actors, particularly those aligned with Russia, have desired for a long time. It’s a calculated move with a deeply destabilizing endgame.
The fear is that Trump, with his well-documented disdain for NATO, might use the situation as a pretext to dismantle the organization. Some believe he is essentially a “Trump Agent,” carrying out a pre-determined plan orchestrated by forces that benefit from a weakened, or even nonexistent, NATO. The argument goes that Russia, in particular, would see a huge strategic advantage in the alliance’s demise. The invasion of Greenland isn’t even a prerequisite for the US to undermine NATO, it’s all set up already, even without an invasion, NATO’s end is a win.
The underlying suspicion runs deep. The timeline of events, the rhetoric, and the actions all point to a concerted effort to weaken Western alliances and the established world order. Trump’s history of disparaging NATO, his willingness to align with adversaries, and the potential benefits to Russia all coalesce into a dangerous picture. This is not just a policy disagreement; it’s a fundamental challenge to the post-World War II security architecture.
The mechanics of this potential unraveling are also worrying. If the US were to invade Greenland, a NATO ally, it’s hard to imagine the alliance surviving. The US makes up a large part of the military power in NATO, it would have to go, leaving the alliance weakened. This could force the remaining European nations to either submit to a weakened NATO, or strike out on their own.
Many question why the US is not simply kicked out of NATO rather than the entire alliance dissolving. The issue here isn’t simple. The US, with its substantial military presence across Europe, is deeply integrated into the continent’s defense apparatus. Removing the US, or the US leaving on its own, would necessitate a complete restructuring of military strategy, intelligence sharing, and command structures, which is an eventuality that many nations would prefer to avoid.
The suggested solution to this crisis? The EU, UK, and Canada, should preemptively deploy troops to Greenland, and present a deterrent to a potential invasion. This could force the US to reconsider the invasion of a NATO ally, or give the EU and allies a chance to form an alternative to NATO. However, that may not work, as some are warning the US military would need to be opposed in a military conflict.
The implications are grim. A weakened NATO, or no NATO at all, could embolden adversaries and destabilize the European continent. It could open the door to further aggression and conflict, potentially making the world a more dangerous place. The concern is that Trump’s actions, whether intentional or not, are playing right into the hands of those who wish to see the West divided.
Some see the potential of an alternate reality in this chaos. If the US withdraws or is forced out, it could be a chance for Europe to assert its own sovereignty and independence. Freed from the constraints of American dominance, Europe might finally be able to craft its own foreign policy and defense strategy. A continent free from a foreign military presence can speak of democracy, independence, and strategic autonomy.
The fact is, as long as the US occupies Europe, that the United States has the last say in Europe’s foreign policy. Europe needs to find a spine and stand on its own two feet.
Others, however, express fear of European cowardice. They worry that Europe will be paralyzed, unable to act without the permission of Washington. The real fear is that Europe will fail to seize the moment, and instead, allow itself to be consumed by the rising tide of global disorder.
Regardless, the stakes are undeniably high. This could be a pivotal moment for Europe and for the world. If Trump invades Greenland, and NATO dissolves, the consequences will be profound, reshaping the geopolitical landscape for years to come. The question is, can Europe rise to the occasion and forge its own destiny, or will it succumb to the forces of division and chaos?