Geopolitical Storm: Why Europe Must Prepare for Greenland's Annexation and the End of NATO

A New Geopolitical Fault Line: The Threat of Greenland's Annexation

The global security landscape is bracing for a seismic shift. According to a growing consensus among international affairs experts,Europe should prepare for Greenland’s annexation and end of NATOas we currently understand it. Recent events, notably the controversial US intervention in Venezuela, have escalated concerns that the United States, under former President Donald Trump, might pursue the annexation of Greenland — a self-governed, Danish-owned territory.

This audacious move, observers suggest, wouldn't just redefine America's reach in the Western Hemisphere; it could unravel the foundational principles of post-World War II security, dealing a devastating blow to the NATO alliance and inadvertently advancing Russia’s strategic objectives in Ukraine.

From Venezuela to Greenland: A Shift in US Foreign Policy?

The dramatic US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in early January has, for many analysts, emboldened a more aggressive stance in US foreign policy. The very next day, Trump ignited widespread apprehension in Europe by declaring to The Atlantic, “We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defence.” This statement was not an isolated thought; Stephen Miller, then White House Deputy Chief of Staff, affirmed that “it has been the formal position of the US government since the beginning of this administration” for Greenland to join the United States.

Anna Wieslander, Northern Europe director for the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank, views the Venezuelan incident as a clear indicator of the Trump administration’s ambition to assert dominance across the Western Hemisphere, a region Greenland geographically falls within. “Since the successful intervention in Venezuela immediately was followed with threats of using force against Greenland...it has in the short run, made it more likely,” Wieslander noted.

Danish Prime Minister's Dire Warning

The gravity of the situation was quickly acknowledged by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. On January 4, she cautioned Denmark’s public broadcaster, “Unfortunately, I think the American president should be taken seriously when he says he wants Greenland.” Her concern extended beyond Greenland’s sovereignty, predicting the potential move would fundamentally dismantle the NATO alliance.

“If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop — that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security,” Frederiksen elaborated, articulating a fear shared by many European leaders.

The NATO Alliance Under Threat

The prospect of a US military action against Denmark, a NATO member, highlights an existential crisis for the alliance.

Article 5: The Cornerstone Crumbles?

Anna Wieslander echoed the Danish Prime Minister’s alarm, stating, “Should the darkest hour come and the United States uses military force to annex Greenland, the essence of Article 5 and collective defence within NATO would lose its meaning.” Article 5, NATO’s mutual defence clause, is the bedrock of the alliance, stipulating that an attack on one member is an attack on all. A US aggression against a fellow member would render this principle meaningless.

Chicago University history professor John Mearsheimer painted an even more stark picture: “You could argue that if you marry what’s happening in Ukraine to a possible invasion of Greenland, one could make the argument that it could be a deadly one-two combination that would basically ruin the alliance. NATO would be a shadow of itself. It would effectively be wrecked.”

A Gift to Russia's Ambitions

Beyond the internal strife within NATO, a US annexation of Greenland would offer a significant strategic advantage to Russia. Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert for Chatham House, warned that such an action would “play into Putin’s hands in Ukraine.” The notion of larger powers acting with impunity in their perceived “backyard” aligns perfectly with Moscow’s geopolitical doctrine.

Giles firmly believes that invading Greenland could be “potentially handing Moscow the greatest gift the Trump administration has yet offered,” suggesting it would validate Russia's own aggressive territorial ambitions and destabilize the global order.

Europe's Strategic Dilemma: Preparing for the Unthinkable

Despite the growing anxieties, European leaders, while meeting White House officials in Paris to discuss Ukraine’s security, remained publicly silent on the issues of Venezuela and Greenland. Professor Konstantinos Filis of the American College of Greece suggested this was due to their immediate priority: “The priority is Ukraine, European defence and European security, and keeping the Americans in.”

Buying Time or Seeking Deterrence?

However, many believe this public silence masks a deeper, urgent recognition of the looming threat. Keir Giles argues that European leaders are merely “buying time,” and that while “pandering to Trump has been an element of our strategy over the last year,” there is an underlying, “urgent” preparation for a “final rupture with the United States.”

Giles advocated for a proactive military deterrent in Greenland, drawing parallels to the deployment of allied troops in the Baltic States and Poland after 2017, which successfully deterred Russian aggression. He argued that the same principle should apply to deterring potential US “military miscalculation.”

United Front: European Military Options Emerge

The implications of a weakened global order were highlighted by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who stated that the erosion of common NATO values risked turning the world into “a den of robbers, where the most unscrupulous take whatever they want.” This sentiment underscores Europe’s growing resolve.

In response to Trump’s initial aspirations for Greenland, France subtly demonstrated its sovereignty over its territories, deploying a nuclear submarine off Canada's shores near the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. More recently, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot affirmed, “We want ​to take action, but we want to do so together with our European partners,” indicating upcoming discussions with Germany and Poland.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul explicitly stated, “Since Denmark belongs to NATO, Greenland will in principle also be defended by NATO.” This declaration, however, creates an unsettling paradox if the aggressor is the alliance’s most powerful member.

While experts remain divided on the precise method the US might employ for such an acquisition, the consensus is clear: the potential annexation of Greenland represents an unprecedented challenge that could redefine Europe’s security architecture and the future of global alliances. The continent stands at a critical juncture, facing the urgent need to strategize for an uncertain future.