Today's Edition
Ayesha Khalfan AlRemeithi*
The question about the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and with it, the nature of European-American relations, rarely fades without resurfacing. It is repeatedly renewed by disputes over defence budgets, approaches to ending conflicts, and diverging perspectives across the Atlantic on European and international issues. The United States’ desire to assert control over Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark, has reignited these disagreements, alongside the continued lack of consensus on how to bring the Ukraine war to an end.
As disputes intensify on several issues, the continuation of the alliance in its previous form is no longer inevitable, amid growing doubts about the role of the United States within the alliance and how it views its European partners. The alliance could unravel if the allies fail to reach a shared formula on Greenland and the future of Ukraine. What hinders such an outcome is that Europe still needs the United States, even as it seeks greater strategic independence.
The United States has changed long-standing rules, placing the use of force above all else, including alliances, in pursuit of President Donald Trump’s international vision. This shift has meant breaking away from commitments once seen as stable toward European partners through measures such as tariffs, a reduced emphasis on perceived threats and risks to Europe, and, at times, alignment with the Russian view despite its dangers to Europe, to shed the burden of Ukraine.
Article Five of the NATO Treaty states that an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all members of the alliance. However, the question now preoccupying Europeans is this: what if the attack was carried out by the United States itself against Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, a NATO member? At present, European options in these matters are limited. Efforts to build an independent strategic deterrence remain distant, and even the formation of a joint NATO mission could be undermined by the American ally.
The United States seeks to take control of Greenland by any means, even though a political settlement is more likely than direct military action. European-American relations remain stuck in a difficult impasse between those who view Greenland as vital to US security because of its location and mineral resources, a view that threatens NATO and puts Europe to a hard test, and the right of the island’s inhabitants to self-determination.
If the United States moves by force toward Greenland, the alliance’s very existence and credibility would be at risk, and the future would offer no guarantee of relying on others. This may be a lesson Europeans have been slow to absorb, with deep consequences for the balance of power and the Western alliance. Resorting to force would fracture European-American relations, leaving Europe with only limited defence options amid declining power and economic crises. This could push some actors toward different domestic and alliance choices as their leverage erodes. As a result, the map of defence industries and political, economic and military alliances within and beyond Europe would change, especially in light of Russia’s and China’s military and non-military capabilities.
Trump’s ambition is met by European leaders’ efforts to keep the alliance strong. The idea of an alliance without the United States is not seriously advanced in Europe, yet an alliance that fractures without fully collapsing would amount to weakness. For this reason, Europeans still hope for a political rather than military solution in Greenland. However, if members succeed in overcoming the crises of Greenland and Ukraine, a key question remains: how can their visions of the world converge after international rules and practices have changed?
*Senior researcher and director of the Research Department at TRENDS Research & Advisory
