The Decline of Transatlantic Relationships?

0

For 76 years, NATO has stood as the cornerstone of Western security. But as of
January 2026, that foundation is cracking. President Donald Trump’s threats to seize
Greenland from Denmark—a fellow NATO member—has exposed fundamental fractures in
the transatlantic alliance that may prove to be irreparable.

For NATO to survive this crisis, it must answer an uncomfortable question: what is the
alliance worth if its founding member can threaten another with military force?

The immediate trigger was America’s military operation in Venezuela, which saw the military, including the elite DELTA force, capture President Nicolás Maduro. While European leaders condemned this violation of international law, their criticism was notably muted. Then came Greenland. Trump’s
declaration that the United States would acquire the Arctic territory “one way or the other”
transformed theoretical concerns into an existential crisis for the alliance.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s response was unequivocal: if the United States
chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, “then everything stops”. She was not
exaggerating. NATO’s Article 5 mutual defence guarantee becomes meaningless when the
alliance’s most powerful member threatens another. As European Defense Commissioner
Andrius Kubilius put it, such action would mark “the end of trans-Atlantic partnership”.

European leaders mobilized quickly. Seven nations—France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain,
Poland, and Denmark—issued a joint statement declaring that Greenland “belongs to its
people” and that only Denmark and Greenland could decide the territory’s future. British
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been in discussions with European allies about potentially
deploying forces to Greenland as part of a NATO mission—an extraordinary proposition that
would see European troops defending allied territory against potential American aggression.

Yet the White House remains unmoved. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that “utilising
the U.S. military is always an option”, while Trump adviser Stephen Miller dismissed
concerns, arguing that “nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of
Greenland”. He may be right. Defence analysts told CNBC they believe any American
military action would be unopposed, with European forces unlikely to fire on American
troops despite their commitment to defending allied territory.

This creates a devastating paradox. NATO’s entire premise rests on collective defence, yet
analysts predict that if tested, the alliance risks collapsing without a shot being fired.
European nations find themselves trapped between their stated principles and the realpolitik
of opposing a superpower that provides the backbone of their security architecture.

[U.S military action] would mark the end of trans-Atlantic partnership

The implications extend far beyond Greenland’s borders. Russia has already seized on the
crisis, characterizing American actions as “armed aggression” while highlighting Western
hypocrisy. Moscow benefits twice: first, by watching NATO tear itself apart; second, by
using European hesitancy to validate its narrative that international law is merely a tool for the
powerful. As Marion Messmer of Chatham House noted, European leaders’ caution in
criticising Trump’s administration over Venezuela has undermined their moral authority
when condemning Russian actions in Ukraine

For NATO to survive this crisis, it must answer an uncomfortable question: what is the
alliance worth if its founding member can threaten another with military force? European
nations are beginning to contemplate the unthinkable—what NATO looks like without
America. France and Germany are reportedly working on contingency plans should
Washington follow through on its threats.

European nations are beginning to contemplate the unthinkable—what NATO looks like without America

Denmark, meanwhile, has announced it will spend $13.8 billion rearming Greenland, given
what Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen called “the serious security situation we find
ourselves in.” Greenland’s 57,000 residents now find themselves at the centre of a
geopolitical storm that could reshape the entire Western security order.

European nations are beginning to contemplate the unthinkable—what NATO looks like without America

Trump’s strategic rationale—that Greenland is necessary to counter Russian and Chinese
activity in the Arctic—ironically finds its strongest rebuttal in the crisis he has created.
NATO already provides the framework for collective Arctic security. The United States
already maintains the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement with
Denmark. What Trump’s threats have accomplished is not enhanced security, but rather the
potential destruction of the very alliance that makes Arctic defense possible.

As Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers prepare for talks with Secretary of State Marco
Rubio, the question is whether diplomacy can repair what presidential rhetoric has fractured.
European leaders hope their increased Arctic presence might convince Trump that his goals
can be achieved through cooperation rather than coercion. But hope is not strategy, and the
damage may already be done.

The transatlantic relationship has weathered storms before—disagreements over Iraq, Libya,
and defense spending. But those were policy disputes among allies. This is different. This is
one ally threatening to seize territory from another by military force. If NATO cannot hold
the line here, on a matter as fundamental as territorial integrity, it becomes difficult to
imagine what shared values remain worth defending together.

Greenland’s 57,000 residents now find themselves at the centre of a geopolitical storm that could reshape the entire Western security order

A spokesperson from Exeter Students’ Guild said, “We know this may be a really worrying time for some of our community. We’ve been following the situation in Venezuela closely and want to acknowledge the impact this could be having on students from the country and the wider region – whether you’re here in the UK or feeling anxious about family and friends back home.  

You don’t have to go through this alone. Support is available through the University’s Wellbeing and International Student teams, as well as the Guild’s Advice Service, PGR support, mitigation guidance and the Multifaith Chaplaincy. If you’re feeling overwhelmed or just need someone to talk to, please reach out. We’re here to listen.”