Is NATO going to protect Denmark from having Greenland taken from them?
April 3, 2025
Is NATO going to protect Denmark from having Greenland taken from them?
26 comments
Realistically, no.
There’s a non-zero chance Trump does it, and if they do, NATO will collapse. That is why Europe needs to form its own independent defence system, and do it yesterday.
Well, most of NATO Firepower consists of the US armed forces. Especially when it comes to power projection overseas.
Also, NATO Command structures are heavily populated by US officers.
I’m not entirely sure the logistics of this will work out.
Another question is whether or not the EU will protect Denmark, the answer to which will vary on the stakes, propably.
In theory, if Denmark asks for protection then the other NATO members should help it.
In reality though, it’s hard to see it actually happening. Most importantly, it would mean a war between nuclear powers, and one of those powers is being run by an unstable lunatic. Even ignoring the nukes, a war would be devastating for everyone involved. Nobody would win.
My guess is that what would actually happen is the collapse of NATO, the US being ostracised by most of the rest of the West, and Putin being utterly delighted.
Perhaps something like NATO might emerge from the remaining members, but it would be weaker without the US. Eastern European countries would be very worried at this point.
The US would find itself isolated, with only a scattering of authoritarian right wing dictatorships to stand by it. That might work for a while, but eventually a situation will come along where it wants help, and it will struggle to get it.
legally we would have to but it would be horrendous.
No, but it would absolutely destroy the reputation of the US. And I doubt it will recover that reputation for decades. This means a huge loss of influence by the U.S, a rejection of U.S culture, goods and services by most of the western world and the emergence of a new European led NATO style organisation with a military power to rival the U.S.
The end result would be devastating for America. A complete loss of political and cultural dominance.
Yes.
Also if the USA attacked, it would trigger Article 8 of the NATO Treaty.
The EU member treaties also include a clause where member states of the EU HAVE to militarily respond to an attack on a EU Member. Which, frankly, is a stronger clause than Article 5
The economic threat of pulling Maersk from US ports is a pretty big hammer. It may not come to military.
Pretty sure article 5 still applies if both nations are in NATO. The other members are supposed to protect whoever is attacked.
NATO would collapse though and I think it’s very likely a lot of countries would do everything in their power not tog eat involved as even the combined forces of all other NATO nations could not defeat the US.
France and the UK has already pledged troops in case of a defensive need. I saw someone come up with a genius plan, to have military exercises ‘to practice against a simulated russia’ in an arctic environment, and then keep it a rolling exercise with troops from other NATO countries continuously in Greenland for the next 4 years.🤷
The dumbest thing is how an actual “invasion” might look like. According to an agreement all the way back from 1951 with Denmark and Greenland, the US can pretty much build all the bases and station all the troops on the island they want to.
During the Cold War, they had 17 bases and more than 10,000 personnel stationed in Greenland. Now it’s 1 base and around 200 personnel.
So if they move in and start building bases and moving personnel to the island, it’s basically just doing what the agreement already allows them to do, except they’re causing a lot of completely unnecessary discord over it.
Then of course people will say, ok so the security concerns are bullshit, it must be about getting access to the minerals. But that’s also bullshit. US companies can bid on all the mining concessions they want, but hardly any do, because mining in Greenland is not economically viable. It’s not because they don’t have access, it’s simply because these minerals are much cheaper and easier to access elsewhere in the world.
They may become economically viable to mine in 100-200 years with global warming, but it definitely won’t happen in Trump’s remaining lifespan.
This whole thing is so dumb. If you consider Trump as a potential Russian asset, it makes a lot of sense though.
What Nato article is covering the scenario of a conflict between 2 Nato members.?
The thing is that they cant really short term do much with Greenland. But the EU can short term inflict enormous damage on the US. Imagine when the EU decides that the US is the enemy because it invaded an EU member and decides all US transactions cant happen in Europe and they can forget about patents and copyrights.
The whole “Trade deficit” with the EU is kind of a lie, its in goods but in services the US is clawing it all back.
Think what would happen to Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Oracle, Microsoft etc when they are unable to make financial transactions in Europe and EU companies would be free to copy anything they like from them.
TV and movies with no protection and no pay when used even in theaters or on public tv channels
The thing is that the US is pushing to see how far they can go before they get major push-back just as Trump does in business. The difference is that he decided to fight everyone at once and is about to get push-back that’s not easily reversed
NATO wouldn’t be needed, Europe could collapse the American economy in hours, The Americans would end up killing trump themselves.
Almost certainly not in the way you’d think (or hope).
I think that NATO, as a single entity, will be entirely incapacitated due to the de-facto head of NATO being the US. NATO can’t fight itself, it would be extremely stupid and would likely lead to the dissolution of NATO.
Individual NATO members will not fight the US either.
What *can* happen is that members of NATO or EU team up to *show support* for Greenland and Denmark. This can be politically, e.g. like the sanctions against Russia. It can also be something like sending people/politicians/troops to Greenland *before* the US makes a move. The latter is problematic, though, as it would divert Europe’s attention away from Ukraine.
I don’t think that NATO countries from Europe would fight the US over an island with 50,000 people that is 3,000 miles from Europe. The effort it would take to defend Greenland from the US would deplete so many resources that it would open the door for Putin to sweep across Europe from the West. With that being said I do not think the US is going to take Greenland by force so I don’t think this will be an issue.
There’s not a damn thing we could do to stop them, sadly. We in Europe and the UK have neglected our defence for too long.
The way i see it these sanctions can be implemented for two reasons
1 to prepare for an invasion of Greenland and thus already being sanctioned by Europe
2 crashing the economy so rich American oligarchs can buy everything for a dime and after it recovers it becomes a Russia 2.0
NATO is already over now in practise. When that happens it will be officially the end. NATO works under the leadership of the US. Other members are not equipped to oppose the US. Not in the next five years at least.
Dane here. I think Denmark would not even invoke Article 5, as this would definitely kill the non-US NATO.
I live in Denmark and there is nobody with a sound mind who seriously believes anyone will take Greenland. This a hype that has gotten way out of hand.
How? The remaining nations do not have anywhere near enough power projection.
Hell Canada’s only has 10.000 or so Frontline troops.
Since NATO it’s basically the euphemism for “USA and it’s subjects”
I don’t think so.
Yea JD Wanz will nuke Washington DC if they attack Nuuk
Maybe only a dream?
I dont think it would come to that, first Europe and some other countries would impose sanctions on USA and cut off trade with them, dolar would crumble and stop being world currency….all that would lead to civil war in USA if not sooner. And i wouldnt want that to my fellow Americans, hopefully they will manage to fix situation without it.
Americans are used on thier freedom for decades, once MAGA cross the line it will be their demise and i think they are aware of it.
You mean NATO is going to protect Greenland from NATO? 🤣🤣🤣
As a Norwegian it’s interesting (not in the fun way) to watch and consider how it might affect Svalbard. And the seed vault… I do feel for our Danish cousins, and more than anything the Greenlanders. Talked with my cousin last year about taking a trip, things change.
26 comments
Realistically, no.
There’s a non-zero chance Trump does it, and if they do, NATO will collapse. That is why Europe needs to form its own independent defence system, and do it yesterday.
Well, most of NATO Firepower consists of the US armed forces. Especially when it comes to power projection overseas.
Also, NATO Command structures are heavily populated by US officers.
I’m not entirely sure the logistics of this will work out.
Another question is whether or not the EU will protect Denmark, the answer to which will vary on the stakes, propably.
In theory, if Denmark asks for protection then the other NATO members should help it.
In reality though, it’s hard to see it actually happening. Most importantly, it would mean a war between nuclear powers, and one of those powers is being run by an unstable lunatic. Even ignoring the nukes, a war would be devastating for everyone involved. Nobody would win.
My guess is that what would actually happen is the collapse of NATO, the US being ostracised by most of the rest of the West, and Putin being utterly delighted.
Perhaps something like NATO might emerge from the remaining members, but it would be weaker without the US. Eastern European countries would be very worried at this point.
The US would find itself isolated, with only a scattering of authoritarian right wing dictatorships to stand by it. That might work for a while, but eventually a situation will come along where it wants help, and it will struggle to get it.
legally we would have to but it would be horrendous.
No, but it would absolutely destroy the reputation of the US. And I doubt it will recover that reputation for decades. This means a huge loss of influence by the U.S, a rejection of U.S culture, goods and services by most of the western world and the emergence of a new European led NATO style organisation with a military power to rival the U.S.
The end result would be devastating for America. A complete loss of political and cultural dominance.
Yes.
Also if the USA attacked, it would trigger Article 8 of the NATO Treaty.
The EU member treaties also include a clause where member states of the EU HAVE to militarily respond to an attack on a EU Member. Which, frankly, is a stronger clause than Article 5
The economic threat of pulling Maersk from US ports is a pretty big hammer. It may not come to military.
Pretty sure article 5 still applies if both nations are in NATO. The other members are supposed to protect whoever is attacked.
NATO would collapse though and I think it’s very likely a lot of countries would do everything in their power not tog eat involved as even the combined forces of all other NATO nations could not defeat the US.
France and the UK has already pledged troops in case of a defensive need. I saw someone come up with a genius plan, to have military exercises ‘to practice against a simulated russia’ in an arctic environment, and then keep it a rolling exercise with troops from other NATO countries continuously in Greenland for the next 4 years.🤷
The dumbest thing is how an actual “invasion” might look like. According to an agreement all the way back from 1951 with Denmark and Greenland, the US can pretty much build all the bases and station all the troops on the island they want to.
During the Cold War, they had 17 bases and more than 10,000 personnel stationed in Greenland. Now it’s 1 base and around 200 personnel.
So if they move in and start building bases and moving personnel to the island, it’s basically just doing what the agreement already allows them to do, except they’re causing a lot of completely unnecessary discord over it.
Then of course people will say, ok so the security concerns are bullshit, it must be about getting access to the minerals. But that’s also bullshit. US companies can bid on all the mining concessions they want, but hardly any do, because mining in Greenland is not economically viable. It’s not because they don’t have access, it’s simply because these minerals are much cheaper and easier to access elsewhere in the world.
They may become economically viable to mine in 100-200 years with global warming, but it definitely won’t happen in Trump’s remaining lifespan.
This whole thing is so dumb. If you consider Trump as a potential Russian asset, it makes a lot of sense though.
What Nato article is covering the scenario of a conflict between 2 Nato members.?
The thing is that they cant really short term do much with Greenland. But the EU can short term inflict enormous damage on the US. Imagine when the EU decides that the US is the enemy because it invaded an EU member and decides all US transactions cant happen in Europe and they can forget about patents and copyrights.
The whole “Trade deficit” with the EU is kind of a lie, its in goods but in services the US is clawing it all back.
Think what would happen to Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Oracle, Microsoft etc when they are unable to make financial transactions in Europe and EU companies would be free to copy anything they like from them.
TV and movies with no protection and no pay when used even in theaters or on public tv channels
The thing is that the US is pushing to see how far they can go before they get major push-back just as Trump does in business. The difference is that he decided to fight everyone at once and is about to get push-back that’s not easily reversed
NATO wouldn’t be needed, Europe could collapse the American economy in hours, The Americans would end up killing trump themselves.
Almost certainly not in the way you’d think (or hope).
I think that NATO, as a single entity, will be entirely incapacitated due to the de-facto head of NATO being the US. NATO can’t fight itself, it would be extremely stupid and would likely lead to the dissolution of NATO.
Individual NATO members will not fight the US either.
What *can* happen is that members of NATO or EU team up to *show support* for Greenland and Denmark. This can be politically, e.g. like the sanctions against Russia. It can also be something like sending people/politicians/troops to Greenland *before* the US makes a move. The latter is problematic, though, as it would divert Europe’s attention away from Ukraine.
I don’t think that NATO countries from Europe would fight the US over an island with 50,000 people that is 3,000 miles from Europe. The effort it would take to defend Greenland from the US would deplete so many resources that it would open the door for Putin to sweep across Europe from the West. With that being said I do not think the US is going to take Greenland by force so I don’t think this will be an issue.
There’s not a damn thing we could do to stop them, sadly. We in Europe and the UK have neglected our defence for too long.
The way i see it these sanctions can be implemented for two reasons
1 to prepare for an invasion of Greenland and thus already being sanctioned by Europe
2 crashing the economy so rich American oligarchs can buy everything for a dime and after it recovers it becomes a Russia 2.0
NATO is already over now in practise. When that happens it will be officially the end. NATO works under the leadership of the US. Other members are not equipped to oppose the US. Not in the next five years at least.
Dane here. I think Denmark would not even invoke Article 5, as this would definitely kill the non-US NATO.
I live in Denmark and there is nobody with a sound mind who seriously believes anyone will take Greenland. This a hype that has gotten way out of hand.
How? The remaining nations do not have anywhere near enough power projection.
Hell Canada’s only has 10.000 or so Frontline troops.
Since NATO it’s basically the euphemism for “USA and it’s subjects”
I don’t think so.
Yea JD Wanz will nuke Washington DC if they attack Nuuk
Maybe only a dream?
I dont think it would come to that, first Europe and some other countries would impose sanctions on USA and cut off trade with them, dolar would crumble and stop being world currency….all that would lead to civil war in USA if not sooner. And i wouldnt want that to my fellow Americans, hopefully they will manage to fix situation without it.
Americans are used on thier freedom for decades, once MAGA cross the line it will be their demise and i think they are aware of it.
You mean NATO is going to protect Greenland from NATO? 🤣🤣🤣
As a Norwegian it’s interesting (not in the fun way) to watch and consider how it might affect Svalbard. And the seed vault… I do feel for our Danish cousins, and more than anything the Greenlanders. Talked with my cousin last year about taking a trip, things change.