2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Brad Sallows]

And Macron pointing out the obvious, a defensive alliance is for defence.

From the US PoV, some NATO countries are going to have to revisit their notions of stranding hundreds of billions worth of US military assets by effectively vetoing use. "We are happy to have you spend your money here for decades to secure us from the threat of Russian aggression, but reserve the right to prevent you from dual-use of what you paid for" won't do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I was curious and did a bit of searching and it seems to be an open question whether the U.S. president can withdraw the country from a treaty like NATO or if it requires congressional authorization.

Treaty withdrawal in general is an unsettled constitutional question. Congress passed specific legislation on NATO withdrawal in 2023, but it hasn't been tested (constitutionality) yet.

 

[lenaitch]

Maybe Trump will have him visit the White House together with Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa again. Get them both in suits, no robes or head scarfs.

So him and JD give them a public dressing down in front of the gilded fireplace.

 

[ytz]

I was curious and did a bit of searching and it seems to be an open question whether the U.S. president can withdraw the country from a treaty like NATO or if it requires congressional authorization.

Sure. But also kind of irrelevant. Simply knowing he won't honour the treaty or drag his feet will massively boost Vlad's confidence.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I was curious and did a bit of searching and it seems to be an open question whether the U.S. president can withdraw the country from a treaty like NATO or if it requires congressional authorization.

Apparently POTUS cannot end US membership nor can he modify the legislative terms of US membership without Congress, but he can do the following:

1. reduce forces to near zero, order an end to US participation in most NATO activities and programs,
2. order NATO out of the US,
3. close US bases and installations supporting NATO,
4. stop selling arms, parts and upgrades
5. End or edit sharing of intelligence,
6. Deny use of spectrum coverage including use of satellite uplink and certain GPS dependent systems.
7. Have the US NATO Ambassador slow walk, push back and generally obstruct invocation of Articles.

All of the above sound like the Trump we all know.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Apparently POTUS cannot end US membership nor can he modify the legislative terms of US membership without Congress, but he can do the following:

1. reduce forces to near zero, order an end to US participation in most NATO activities and programs,

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

1. order NATO out of the US,

Is there enough to matter?

1. close US bases and installations supporting NATO,

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

1. stop selling arms, parts and upgrades

Sensible, if US needs all of its own consumption to solve all of its own problems. (They get to define their own problems and solutions; others do not get to dictate.)

Etc.

The US can't afford a bespoke compartmented commitment for each multi-lateral defence arrangements it has. In effect it needs to be able to employ all its assets worldwide, if there is to be any hope that it will continue to supply a modicum of security worldwide.

The problem here is that Israel and the US each have an "Iran problem" (different for each, more pronounced for Israel) that they have been almost entirely left to solve themselves. Now they're solving it, in ways that others would prefer they don't. In solving it, they're creating "Iran problems" for others. And they're leaving others to solve for themselves...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

Is there enough to matter?

Sensible, if assets are at risk of being stranded.

Sensible, if US needs all of its own consumption to solve all of its own problems. (They get to define their own problems and solutions; others do not get to dictate.)

Etc.

The US can't afford a bespoke compartmented commitment for each multi-lateral defence arrangements it has. In effect it needs to be able to employ all its assets worldwide, if there is to be any hope that it will continue to supply a modicum of security worldwide.

The problem here is that Israel and the US each have an "Iran problem" (different for each, more pronounced for Israel) that they have been almost entirely left to solve themselves. Now they're solving it, in ways that others would prefer they don't. In solving it, they're creating "Iran problems" for others. And they're leaving others to solve for themselves...

Agree, I guess.
I guess to put this another way, he can do everything that DeGaulle did ( or could have done), except stay in Europe.

 

[Furniture]

Apparently POTUS cannot end US membership nor can he modify the legislative terms of US membership without Congress, but he can do the following:

1. reduce forces to near zero, order an end to US participation in most NATO activities and programs,
2. order NATO out of the US,
3. close US bases and installations supporting NATO,
4. stop selling arms, parts and upgrades
5. End or edit sharing of intelligence,
6. Deny use of spectrum coverage including use of satellite uplink and certain GPS dependent systems.
7. Have the US NATO Ambassador slow walk, push back and generally obstruct invocation of Articles.

All of the above sound like the Trump we all know.

I'll take a poke at the points above.

1. I believe this is already happening to an extent.
2. There is only one NATO HQ in America, and since it's pretty new relocating it wouldn't be the end of the world.
3. That limits American ability to project power in Europe and Asia, hardly a desireable outcome for America.
4. The end of the US defence industry would follow as every other nation just makes parts for what they already have, and stops buying anything from America.
5. Short term a massive hit to allies, but longer term most will find new sources or develop new sources.
6. The best way to destroy American private industries on top of destroying the defence industries. Europe already is building alternate guidance and communications infrastructure because of the vulnerability to America calling the shots.
7. So business as usual?

I suspect that as America pushes NATO harder, NATO members will begin to genuinely question the value of American involvement in Europe... Perhaps to the point they start invoking Monroe when America tries to push it's will on Europe.

 

[HavokFour]

Not letting it go.

 

[QV]

VDH on US, NATO, and being like Canada.

 

[Czech_pivo]

VDH on US, NATO, and being like Canada.

The guy completes forgets that the US and their Israel Allies made a conscious decision to not inform a single NATO Ally before they launched this war and then when things went tits up, they come asking for help - not in the bombing campaign but in having NATO put their warships into the Gulf, the very place that the US itself hasn't put any of their own ships into.

What if NATO completely cut the US out of the plan to bomb/invade say, Serbia, and they started bombing all the weapons facilities, military installations, etc of Serbia and NATO started massing troops along its borders. But before they go in for the final kill, they ask the US to join in with them as it would remove a country that has been causing so much trouble to its neighbours, such as Kosovo, Bosnia and Albanian. A country that doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Kosovo and has numerus border disputes with Bosnia. The US says' No thanks, we don't recognize this as a legitimate war or reasons to attack Serbia.' Is that ok?

I understand that there are vast differences between Iran and Serbia. But was/is Iran a real threat to the European countries of NATO? Has Serbia been a threat to some of its European neighbours in the last 2 decades? Is stability in that part of Europe important to the Europeans? Is stability in that part of the middle east important to the Americans?

As for his sniping at Canada. He seems to forget that we didn't sit on our hands in Aug 1914 and profit directly from that war for 3yrs before being dragged in by fear of losing their French/British customers and debt owed to them. He also forgets that they pretty much did a rinse and repeat in 1939.

Ask yourself this question - if Canada had sent 25,000 troops to Afghanistan for 10+yrs instead of 2,500 would the current situation in Afghanistan be any different? Would this current administration be saying or doing anything different towards Canada over the last 18 months?

 

[Kirkhill]

I find it fascinating that the only threat anybody in our neighbourhood has taken seriously in the last 80 years is an American threat.

I kind of think that is what the Americans have been complaining about.

 

[QV]

I find it fascinating that the only threat anybody in our neighbourhood has taken seriously in the last 80 years is an American threat.

I kind of think that is what the Americans have been complaining about.

The economic threat from the US is real. And that is the only thing that anyone has found to actually move the needle for Canada.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The economic threat from the US is real. And that is the only thing that anyone has found to actually move the needle for Canada.

Maybe because its one big massive needle that doesn't necessarily contain medicine but maybe just an air bubble that could kill us.

 

[Halifax Tar]

NATO, as an alliance, has lasted well longer than most other alliances. It has also probably become too big and bureaucratic.

I think we are just witnessing the natural evolution it, nothing last forever. I get it, that's scary.

 

[brihard]

NATO, as an alliance, has lasted well longer than most other alliances. It has also probably become too big and bureaucratic.

I think we are just witnessing the natural evolution it, nothing last forever. I get it, that's scary.

Fundamentally it comes down to whether the U.S. still considers Russia and its potential expansion in Europe a strategic threat to American interests. If it does, then NATO as an American-led (and that’s by treaty) institution continues to make sense. If the U.S. no longer considers Russia in Europe to be a strategic threat to America, and if America no longer deems it worth shielding Rurope from Russian expansion for other reasons, then NATO does not make sense.

The North Atlantic Treaty creates an American primacy; without the U.S. the basic mechanics of NATO cannot function. If the U.S. were to either outright withdraw, or simply draw down commitments to avoid congressional entanglements regarding treaties, then the rest of the NATO membership needs to reconsider what formal alliance structure would make sense going forward. At this point a shift from NATO to a parallel and European-led defence alliance against Russia and its allies wouldn’t surprise me. Hell, Pacific states should consider something similar to contain China.

 

[QV]

It is probably best that the 450M population of the EU block ought to decide if Russia is a threat to the EU rather than the 350M population of USA deciding for them. Post WWII it made sense as Europe was in shambles... The EU is no longer in shambles, just delinquent, it is perfectly capable of being the bulwark against Russian aggression if it wants to.

The US will have its hands full containing China - the EU would not likely help much with that.

Alliances and efforts all shift with time.

 

[QV]

Maybe because its one big massive needle that doesn't necessarily contain medicine but maybe just an air bubble that could kill us.

Act accordingly.

 

[brihard]

It is probably best that the 450M population of the EU block ought to decide if Russia is a threat to the EU rather than the 350M population of USA deciding for them. Post WWII it made sense as Europe was in shambles... The EU is no longer in shambles, just delinquent, it is perfectly capable of being the bulwark against Russian aggression if it wants to.

The US will have its hands full containing China - the EU would not likely help much with that.

Alliances and efforts all shift with time.

You missed what I actually said. I said the U.S. needs to decide is a Russia is a threat to the U.S., and if so, if this includes Russian ambitions in Europe.

U.S. collective defence of Europe against USSR/Russia has always been because the U.S. has held them to be a threat. I believe they still do- if not, why the inane nonsense over Greenland?

If the U.S. believes the Russian threat to Europe threatens American interests, then whatever those interests may be, then that informs America’s rational choices about global military and geopolitical strategy. And likewise if they don’t. But their strategic choices, including as it pertains to NATO, should rationally and coherently reflect that assessment.

In short, if Russia is a strategic threat to the U.S., NATO as it currently exists makes sense. If it is not, then a different security order is called for.

Make sense?

 

[HavokFour]

Not letting it go.

View attachment 99633

A follow up, from Greenland.

'We are not some piece of ice': Greenland hits back at Trump's Arctic insult

Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen called on NATO allies to stand together to defend international law as he pushed ‌back against U.S. President Donald Trump's latest comments about the Arctic island.

www.reuters.com

A question for those who may have been following more closely. Has Trump even convened a meeting with NATO members (not the Rutte meeting) regarding Iran yet, or has all the calls for them to get involved been entirely social media posts from him? I don't even think Turkey has invoked Article 4 either, and they've been directly attacked.