A look at Trump expansionism and its repercussions on the alliance. 

(Trump’ shadow over Greenland, Generated by ChatGPT, 2025)

When Trump proposed buying Greenland from Denmark in 2019, the comment was met with as much consternation as laughter. Six years later, the laughter has gone much quieter. 

During Vice President Vance’s unofficial visit to Greenland with his wife and national security advisor Mike Waltz this week, Trump reminded reporters back in Washington that “for international security, we have to have Greenland. It’s not a question of, ‘do you think we can do without it?’ We can’t”. This was the latest statement in a series of increasing expansionist rhetoric from the White House. 

Trump’s skill in laying the groundwork for future actions should not be underestimated. Many of his fiery comments are carefully crafted to create doubt and confusion, which later serve to justify attacks on institutions or treaties. Global warming is a hoax meant to further syphon money from taxpayers? Undo the EPA, the IRA, withdraw from COP. Label all mainstream media as “fake news”? Take them to court for trivial claims, disregarding their first amendment rights, like CBS or ABC experienced. Examples abound — and clearly, this administration’s narrative is no accident. 

Now why this overly stretched out introduction, and what relation does it have with NATO’s article 5? Greenland is part of the kingdom of Denmark, a member of the alliance. What would happen if Trump goes ahead with taking over this territory, in the inhospitable Arctic? A careful reading of the 14 articles of the alliance as well as a look at past events may serve as a valuable case study. 

The fifth article does not specify the action required by each individual member: “the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”. Meaning the response is left to each country’s discretion and capacity. 

Article 5 is complemented by the following one (Article 6), by mentioning the specifics of what would be considered a direct attack, “on territories of any of the parties” as well as “forces, vessels or aircrafts”.

Both articles are purposely short and vague, creating strategic ambiguity — one of defence’s greatest deterrence tactics. Invoking article 5 is equally ambiguous. 

It was only used once, after the 2001 terror attacks. All the members of the alliance committed to actively fight terrorism. But the aid varied between nations, as sending troops alongside the US army had to go through respective parliaments: Spain, for example, never obtained parliamentary approval to send troops to afghanistan. Once again, determining the level of help falls on countries and through democratic processes. 

But are there precedents for disputes resulting in an open conflict between member states? Well, nearly. Looking at the case of the Cyprus conflict in 1974 between Greece and Turkey might be of good help. 

In that year, after a long period of communal instability since its independence from Great Britain 1960, Turkish troops invaded the northern part of the island after a coup supported by the Greek military junta. A wider conflict was avoided by the subsequent fall of the military junta in place and peace talks in Geneva. The ongoing occupation, only officially recognized by Turkey, led Greece to withdraw from NATO’s commending structure in 1974. 

Though not a full withdrawal — France also exited NATO’s integrated command in 1966 — Article 13 stipulates that “any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America”. Leaving the alliance is equally bound by a parliamentary vote, United States included.

What does all this mean for a potential takeover of Greenland? It is difficult to predict if, when, or how such an act might occur — whether through economic coercion or outright military force. We have arguably passed the point where Trump’s rhetoric can be dismissed as mere posturing to pressure allies into meeting their 2% defence spending commitments.

Such a move would set a dangerous precedent for an alliance already weathering internal disputes and existential threats — from escalating tensions over Turkish hydrocarbon exploration in the Aegean Sea to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

In the midst of the growing animosity from the USA towards its allies, and the serious discussions around American expansionist ambitions in the Arctic, North America (Canada), and South America (Panama), some actors are looking at this tragicomic spectacle with delight. It is hard not to imagine Putin or Xi Jinping relishing the sight of the USA willingly putting a spoke on its own wheel, and those of its partners.

It is a sad state of affairs to have to question the legitimacy of NATO in 2025, even though it has provided its member state with considerable protections against an ever assertive Russia for the past 75 years. As a former senior intelligence official puts it when talking about Trump undermining the US intelligence services and strategic alliances: “we’re shooting ourselves in the head, not the foot”. 

Trump’s “enemies from within” might have just gotten a new definition.  

~

Sources: 

Associated Press. (n.d.). Voice of America wins in court, for now, as judge blocks Trump administration from firing staff. AP News. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://apnews.com/article/a1ed0ad37917055a1565da5325bd4fd8​AP News

British Broadcasting Corporation. (n.d.). Cyprus conflict: Will fresh talks bring a resolution?. BBC News. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-71965732​

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2020). Judy Asks: Is NATO Paralyzed Over the Greece-Turkey Conflict?. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/17/judy-asks-is-nato-paralyzed-over-greece-turkey-conflict-pub-82789​

Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The Soviet Bloc’s Clandestine Services: A Report on Covert Activity. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP93T00837R000400060005-9.pdf​

CNN. (2025, March 7). Can NATO survive without the United States?. CNN World. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/07/europe/nato-ukraine-survive-without-united-states-analysis-intl-hnk-ml/index.html​

Fortune. (2025, March 28). Putin, Trump, and the Arctic Trade: Greenland’s Strategic Importance. Fortune. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://fortune.com/2025/03/28/putin-trump-russia-greenland-arctic-trade/​

The Guardian. (2025, March 24). Anger in Greenland over Usha Vance and Mike Waltz’s planned visit this week. The Guardian. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/24/greenland-usha-vance-mike-waltz-visit-anger​

NATO. (n.d.-a). Collective defense and Article 5. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm​

NATO. (n.d.-b). The North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm​

The New York Times. (2025, March 28). Opinion: Trump’s Signal Chat with Hegseth Raises Concerns. The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/28/opinion/trump-hegseth-signal-chat.html​

The Times. (2025). JD Vance in Greenland: Why visit could deepen US-Russian rivalry. The Times. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jd-vance-in-greenland-why-visit-could-deepen-us-russian-rivalry-tttdtbcxn​thetimes.co.uk

Voice of America. (n.d.). Trump’s Lawsuit Against Media Outlets Dismissed by Federal Judge. VOA News. Retrieved March 29, 2025, from https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-lawsuit-against-media-outlets-dismissed-by-federal-judge/