Unlock the free White House Watch newsletter
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
Gerardus Mercator may have a lot to answer for. He was a cartographer who created a world map to aid sailors in the 16th century. On the Mercator map, which magnifies the polar regions and is still widely used today, Greenland appears larger than all of South America and approximately the size of Africa. In reality both continents are many times larger.
Greenland’s deceptively huge size may have helped fuel Donald Trump’s desire to take over the island. The US president once told interviewers: “I love maps. And I always said, ‘Look at its size, it’s huge, and it should be part of the United States.'” Denmark, which has sovereignty over the island, would gladly give the US all the necessary military facilities, as well as access to Greenland’s vital minerals. Therefore there is no strategic case for US occupation. The President’s ego is driving this policy.
Trump has talked threateningly about taking Greenland the easy way or a “more difficult way” – an apparent reference to the use of force. In response to US threats, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that the annexation of Greenland would represent the end of the NATO alliance. Former US Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns agrees that a US invasion would “destroy NATO”.
Some European members of NATO would likely try to keep the alliance going even if the US invaded Greenland, arguing that they still need US protection from Russia. But an alliance based on mutual defense could not avoid one member attacking the other. After that, any American security guarantee will have no value for Europe. Even if some Europeans tried to cling to the wreckage of NATO, it would eventually sink beneath the North Atlantic waves.
The first priority of the US government is apparently to force the Danes to sell Greenland. But it would also represent an unprecedented act of aggression against an ally – one that NATO will struggle to survive.
Fortunately, despite Trump’s threats, we are still somewhat away from the worst. Events in Iran and Venezuela could divert the White House’s attention from Greenland. Leading Republicans have come out in strong opposition to the merger.
Europeans are also talking about increasing NATO’s presence in the Arctic. But, since Trump has made it clear that he wants to take control of the island, this is unlikely to satisfy him.
A more useful approach would be for Europe to explain publicly and privately what the end of NATO would mean for the US. The continued existence of US military bases in Europe would immediately come into question. Some in Trump-world may welcome this, because they see Europe’s defense as a burden the US can do without. But bases like Ramstein in Germany are used for American power projection – including into the Middle East and Iran. The rupture of US security ties with Europe would also mean that the EU would no longer feel the need to respond passively to Trump’s tariffs. Europe could be slapped with a counter-tariff equivalent to the US’s 15 percent levy.
Arms sales to Europe, so important to American defense manufacturers, will also decline as European countries become wary of using American products in their critical infrastructure. Silicon Valley tech giants can expect more heavy taxes and regulation. Consumer boycotts of American products, already common in Canada, could also spread to Europe – America’s largest foreign market. Increased US access to the Russian market would be little compensation.
The risk of divorce from the US would clearly be too high for European countries. They will need to move quickly to establish a new security agreement to replace NATO. The countries that signed a joint letter in support of Denmark – Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain – could form the basis of that alliance with the Nordics. The EU and UK combined have the money and population numbers to stop Russia. But this would cost a lot of money and might require painful steps such as the establishment of compulsory military service.
The US also has a lot of tools at its disposal to make life uncomfortable for post-NATO Europe. The Trump administration will certainly attempt to break up the EU and develop special partnerships with individual members. Those countries that might take the bait – such as Hungary – will face a choice between siding with the US or continuing EU membership. Decades of transatlantic cooperation have also created economic dependencies that the US can exploit – by weaponizing everything from software updates to credit card access.
Britain is particularly vulnerable because of the depth of its security ties with the US. The British and American intelligence services are deeply intertwined. The British nuclear deterrent uses American software and missiles. Britain’s largest defense company BAE Systems sells more goods to the US than to Britain.
That is why many in the British establishment consider the end of NATO unthinkable. This would certainly be unprecedented and dangerous – not just for Britain, but for Europe and the US. But unprecedented and dangerous things have often happened in history. Sadly, when it comes to NATO, it is time to start thinking about the unthinkable.
gideon.rachman@ft.com
