ParisWhen Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, there was little doubt that the US president would distance himself from Europe and upend NATO. But a year later, Trump’s performance is far more disturbing than anyone could have predicted. Not only does he callously despise European countries and their leaders, but he has shamelessly ignored international norms to capture the president of Venezuela and take control of the country. Now it threatens Greenland, the autonomous territory located in the Arctic that belongs to Denmark, a country that is a partner of the European Union and NATO. If he follows through on the threat, the consequences for the Atlantic Alliance could be lethal.
Register to the International newsletter
What seems far away matters more than ever
Sign up for it
Europe is bewildered and afraid. Especially after the arctic island warning. “We need Greenland for national security. We have to be there. If we’re not there, we can’t guarantee national or international security; right now, Greenland is full of Russian and Chinese ships everywhere,” Trump said a few days ago, although there is currently no evidence of the presence of Russian or Chinese-flagged ships. Instead, Washington has a military base there and the territory is rich in mineral resources.
After the attack on Venezuela to end the Maduro regime, no one takes the threats to the European island as a joke anymore. Until recently, it was unthinkable that the United States would dare to threaten one of the members of the Atlantic Alliance. Now the impossible becomes a very real possibility. Washington prioritizes “buying” Greenland, but does not rule out the use of military force to take control: “The president and his team are debating various options to achieve this important foreign policy goal, and of course the use of the US military is always an option available to the commander in chief,” White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday.
Unpublished scenario
What if a NATO member attacked another ally? The Alliance’s statutes do not provide for aggression between members and if Trump opted for military force, the action would represent a turning point for NATO, a crisis with unpredictable consequences. “There are precedents, in particular with the historic dispute between Greece and Turkey, but here we are facing a scenario that has never been foreseen, not even in NATO’s worst nightmares,” admitted General Jérome Pellistrandi, a defense expert, in an interview with the French channel BFMTV. “It would be a crisis like the West has never known,” he warned.
The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, has raised the possibility of a breakup of the Alliance. “If the United States militarily attacks another NATO country, then everything stops, including our NATO and therefore the security system established since the end of World War II,” he said this week. In France, former president François Hollande also maintains that the Atlantic Alliance is at risk in the event that Washington attacks Greenland militarily. “I don’t think it’s the most likely hypothesis, but if there was an American military intervention in Greenland, it would be the end of NATO,” he told France Info.
An attack by one ally on another would be a violation of the preamble to the Alliance treaty, according to which its members undertake to “preserve peace and security”. “NATO is clearly not designed to wage war among its members. It has always been one of its phobias,” says historian Stéphane Audrand in Le Figaro. However, according to the historian in the conservative French newspaper, if Trump attacks Greenland, the allies would hardly dare to stand up to the United States, the world’s leading military power. “No one [dels europeus] he is willing to fight against the US and even less for Greenland,” says Audrand.
Criticism of NATO
Since his first term, the president of the United States has not spared criticism of the role of NATO and its allies. This Wednesday he questioned whether the countries of the Alliance are committed to the US. “I doubt NATO would be there for us if we really needed it,” he wrote on Truth Social. Article 5 of the Alliance, which establishes the principle of collective defense between allies, has only been activated once in history and that was precisely to help the United States after the attacks of September 11.
In the face of Donald Trump’s imperialist attitude and his alarming threats, Europeans are trying not to raise their voice too high and contain criticism. The dilemma is obvious: Washington’s support for Ukraine – and the peace guarantees that are being negotiated – is key for the Europeans. At stake is not only the future of Ukraine but also the security of Europe. If NATO was created in 1949 to protect allies from the Russian threat after the Second World War, 77 years later it is again needed more than ever to ensure that Moscow does not attack European countries. The breakup of the Alliance in the current geopolitical context would have enormous risks that are difficult to calibrate.
