2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Altair]

NATO is done if Trump invades Greenland, Danish PM warns

“Everything stops” if the U.S. annexes the Arctic island, Mette Frederiksen said.

www.politico.eu

“But I will also make it clear that if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War,” Frederiksen added.

“We need Greenland from a national security situation,” he told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday.

“We will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days,” he added, without giving more information about what would happen then.

Trump's latest remarks came after the U.S. launched strikes on Venezuela and arrested its leader, Nicolás Maduro.

European allies back Denmark over Trump's threat to annex Greenland - BBC News

A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON".
On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US".
In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US."
Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland."

I think it's fair to say that it's no longer out of the realm of possibility that we see the American military takeover of Greenland.

 

[Altair]

But of course....we must buy their Jets.

 

[Brad Sallows]

NATO is only finished if the European members and Canada lack the will to simply expel the US. I can't see any practical way to reconcile, except that politicians are often capable of gross inconsistencies and hypocrisies in pursuit of political exigencies. There might have to be a divorce; it isn't in the same universe as the kinds of tensions that exist between some European members and lead to rare transgressions. But there doesn't have to be a dissolution. Some Europeans would undoubtedly welcome the opportunity to replace NATO with a purely EU-focused alliance.

Not much point getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens. Trump is easily distracted, especially by someone willing to soothe and stroke his ego. A small price to pay, but almost everyone insists on meeting his combative bluster with equal combativeness. They are all proud peoples, you see.

 

[brihard]

NATO is only finished if the European members and Canada lack the will to simply expel the US. I can't see any practical way to reconcile, except that politicians are often capable of gross inconsistencies and hypocrisies in pursuit of political exigencies. There might have to be a divorce; it isn't in the same universe as the kinds of tensions that exist between some European members and lead to rare transgressions. But there doesn't have to be a dissolution. Some Europeans would undoubtedly welcome the opportunity to replace NATO with a purely EU-focused alliance.

Not much point getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens. Trump is easily distracted, especially by someone willing to soothe and stroke his ego. A small price to pay, but almost everyone insists on meeting his combative bluster with equal combativeness. They are all proud peoples, you see.

There’s no provision in the North Atlantic Treaty for the ejection of members. It also explicitly gives the government of the United States responsibility for receiving instruments of ratification or denunciation. Without the U.S., other parties can neither formally join nor leave the treaty.

There is no NATO without the U.S. The other members would basically need to draft and enter their own new treaty alliance with the U.S. left out. They would the leave NATO to wither and die, or might formally withdraw on the one year’s notice required.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[brihard]

PMMC has explicitly thrown our support in with Denmark and Greenland.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2008566229624062429

 

[GR66]

NATO is only finished if the European members and Canada lack the will to simply expel the US. I can't see any practical way to reconcile, except that politicians are often capable of gross inconsistencies and hypocrisies in pursuit of political exigencies. There might have to be a divorce; it isn't in the same universe as the kinds of tensions that exist between some European members and lead to rare transgressions. But there doesn't have to be a dissolution. Some Europeans would undoubtedly welcome the opportunity to replace NATO with a purely EU-focused alliance.

Not much point getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens. Trump is easily distracted, especially by someone willing to soothe and stroke his ego. A small price to pay, but almost everyone insists on meeting his combative bluster with equal combativeness. They are all proud peoples, you see.

So it's just proud people blustering when the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor states that "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US", "For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." and "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." and the US President follows up with "We will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days,”

So Denmark and the rest of NATO shouldn't be "getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens"? Everyone should just relax and say "Oh, there goes that silly old Trump being Trumpy again"?

There are a number of Trump supporters on this site who have stated repeatedly that nobody should be surprised by the things that Trump does because he's been very clear about saying what he's going to do...everything from Tariffs, bringing auto manufacturing back to the US from Canada and Mexico, reshoring steel and aluminum, and removing Maduro from power in Venezuela. Is annexing Greenland the one and only Trump policy objective that we should ignore as "bluster"?

 

[Halifax Tar]

So it's just proud people blustering when the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor states that "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US", "For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." and "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." and the US President follows up with "We will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days,”

So Denmark and the rest of NATO shouldn't be "getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens"? Everyone should just relax and say "Oh, there goes that silly old Trump being Trumpy again"?

There are a number of Trump supporters on this site who have stated repeatedly that nobody should be surprised by the things that Trump does because he's been very clear about saying what he's going to do...everything from Tariffs, bringing auto manufacturing back to the US from Canada and Mexico, reshoring steel and aluminum, and removing Maduro from power in Venezuela. Is annexing Greenland the one and only Trump policy objective that we should ignore as "bluster"?

I think the quicker Canada wakes up and realizes the world has changed and the old version is not coming back, the better.

 

[brihard]

So it's just proud people blustering when the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor states that "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US", "For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." and "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." and the US President follows up with "We will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days,”

So Denmark and the rest of NATO shouldn't be "getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens"? Everyone should just relax and say "Oh, there goes that silly old Trump being Trumpy again"?

There are a number of Trump supporters on this site who have stated repeatedly that nobody should be surprised by the things that Trump does because he's been very clear about saying what he's going to do...everything from Tariffs, bringing auto manufacturing back to the US from Canada and Mexico, reshoring steel and aluminum, and removing Maduro from power in Venezuela. Is annexing Greenland the one and only Trump policy objective that we should ignore as "bluster"?

We’re supposed to take what he says seriously until it causes us cognitive dissonance because he says he’ll do things we’ve previously accused people of TDS over.

 

[MrWhyt]

So Denmark and the rest of NATO shouldn't be "getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens"? Everyone should just relax and say "Oh, there goes that silly old Trump being Trumpy again"?

The time to think about fire prevention is when your house is burning down obviously /s

 

[QV]

It makes sense for the US to acquire Greenland - legally and diplomatically of course. Everything and everyone has a price, they just need to get there.

In today's world I'd rather the US control Greenland then a small European country that won't have North America's interests at top of mind.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So it's just proud people blustering when the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor states that "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US", "For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." and "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." and the US President follows up with "We will deal with Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days,”

So Denmark and the rest of NATO shouldn't be "getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens"? Everyone should just relax and say "Oh, there goes that silly old Trump being Trumpy again"?

There are a number of Trump supporters on this site who have stated repeatedly that nobody should be surprised by the things that Trump does because he's been very clear about saying what he's going to do...everything from Tariffs, bringing auto manufacturing back to the US from Canada and Mexico, reshoring steel and aluminum, and removing Maduro from power in Venezuela. Is annexing Greenland the one and only Trump policy objective that we should ignore as "bluster"?

Yes, I think it's bluster. I doubt everyone in the Trump administration is pulling for this outcome, but of course it's the ones who are that are quoted widely. It's easy to make the noises, and harder to follow through. Pretty much all of them know it doesn't have the moral clarity of kidnapping Maduro, and most of those also know the political blowback would be fierce.

Trump doesn't do everything he says he will. As some here are fond of noting, "TACO". The evidence of inconsistent follow-through is incontrovertible.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Let's not forget we now share a (tiny bit) of border with DNK

The Hans Island “Peace” Agreement between Canada, Denmark, and Greenland | In Custodia Legis

This blog post describes the 2022 agreement between Canada and Denmark concerning the territory of Greenland.

blogs.loc.gov

Boundary dispute - Canada.ca

The new agreement between Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark, together with Greenland, resolves the long-standing dispute over sovereignty of Tartupaluk/Hans Island by creating a land boundary. It also modernizes the 1973 boundary within 200 nautical miles and establishes the maritime boundary in...

www.canada.ca

 

[brihard]

It makes sense for the US to acquire Greenland - legally and diplomatically of course. Everything and everyone has a price, they just need to get there.

In today's world I'd rather the US control Greenland then a small European country that won't have North America's interests at top of mind.

It does not make sense legally. You’re completely making that up. There’s no legal imperative for them to do so, so that’s out. There’s no legal authority for them to do so unilaterally. That would be a blatant contravention of the principle of nonaggression in the UN Charter that the U.S. is a signatory of. Legally it could only happen if the population of Greenland chose to exercise their right to self determine and freely chose to join the U.S.

It does not make sense diplomatically. You’re completely making that up too. Denmark has made it very clear there is not a deal to be had here. That negates any clam to there being a diplomatic rationale.

Any legitimate security concern the U.S. has that necessitates positioning of forces or equipment in Greenland could easily be addressed on a consensual basis between the U.S. and Denmark just as they have for many decades. That’s how NATO works. Go figure, this abject stupidity risks exactly that good will and mutual collaboration.

 

[QV]

It does not make sense legally. You’re completely making that up. There’s no legal imperative for them to do so, so that’s out. There’s no legal authority for them to do so unilaterally. That would be a blatant contravention of the principle of nonaggression in the UN Charter that the U.S. is a signatory of. Legally it could only happen if the population of Greenland chose to exercise their right to self determine and freely chose to join the U.S.

It does not make sense diplomatically. You’re completely making that up too. Denmark has made it very clear there is not a deal to be had here. That negates any clam to there being a diplomatic rationale.

Any legitimate security concern the U.S. has that necessitates positioning of forces or equipment in Greenland could easily be addressed on a consensual basis between the U.S. and Denmark just as they have for many decades. That’s how NATO works. Go figure, this abject stupidity risks exactly that good will and mutual collaboration.

Apologies for the confusion, Brihard. Let me re-phrase the first sentence:

In my opinion in makes sense for the US to acquire Greenland in a legal and diplomatic manner.

 

[Kirkhill]

NATO is only finished if the European members and Canada lack the will to simply expel the US. I can't see any practical way to reconcile, except that politicians are often capable of gross inconsistencies and hypocrisies in pursuit of political exigencies. There might have to be a divorce; it isn't in the same universe as the kinds of tensions that exist between some European members and lead to rare transgressions. But there doesn't have to be a dissolution. Some Europeans would undoubtedly welcome the opportunity to replace NATO with a purely EU-focused alliance.

Not much point getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens. Trump is easily distracted, especially by someone willing to soothe and stroke his ego. A small price to pay, but almost everyone insists on meeting his combative bluster with equal combativeness. They are all proud peoples, you see.

Is he easily distracted or does he just like holding the bank for three-card monte?

 

[brihard]

Apologies for the confusion, Brihard. Let me re-phrase the first sentence:

In my opinion in makes sense for the US to acquire Greenland in a legal and diplomatic manner.

What law do you believe allows them to do so out of a consensual diplomatic agreement with Denmark and the consent of the population of Greenland? Neither of those things appears forthcoming.

What causes you to believe there’s a diplomatic path open to the U.S. that would result in U.S. sovereignty over Greenland?

Everything from Denmark thus far is “fuck no and fuck off”, and the allies are aligned with that.

 

[PuckChaser]

But of course....we must buy their Jets.

We don't need to buy they're jets, but they're the best on the market and I'd rather not cut off our nose to spite our face to end up with crappy Gripens no matter how many lies Saab sells.

 

[QV]

What law do you believe allows them to do so out of a consensual diplomatic agreement with Denmark and the consent of the population of Greenland? Neither of those things appears forthcoming.

What causes you to believe there’s a diplomatic path open to the U.S. that would result in U.S. sovereignty over Greenland?

Everything from Denmark thus far is “fuck no and fuck off”, and the allies are aligned with that.

Jesus Brihard, take a breath brother.

I said legally and diplomatically. Denmark's position today is it's starting position, which can change.

Denmark pays a large subsidy to keep Greenland funded. Greenlanders have indicated a desire for independence. This is not a fully settled issue.

There is precedence: Alaska.

 

[brihard]

Jesus Brihard, take a breath brother.

I said legally and diplomatically. Denmark's position today is it's starting position, which can change.

Denmark pays a large subsidy to keep Greenland funded. Greenlanders have indicated a desire for independence. This is not a fully settled issue.

There is precedence: Alaska.

What makes you think I’m not calm? You’re putting a pretty wild notion out that I think deserves challenge.

Yes, Greenland could ‘sell itself’ to the U.S. That’s the only legal path to U.S. sovereignty, and it doesn’t seem likely at all. You were speaking as if there’s some likelihood to it. I don’t see that at all. Maybe you see something I’m missing.