US President Donald Trump has plunged NATO into a crisis described as one of the most dangerous and difficult tests in its history, by threatening to impose new tariffs on US allies who oppose his bid to seize Greenland, ignoring the will of its inhabitants and the principle of the right to self-determination. This escalation puts the world's most powerful military alliance at a critical crossroads.
The extent to which the relative peace in the world is shaken, as a result of the potential collapse of this alliance, depends on the ability of Republicans in the US Congress to show some firmness in the face of their president. The absence of such a stance could open the door to a dangerous precedent that undermines the essence of the current international system based on alliances.
In addition, another factor of no less importance emerges, embodied in the position of European leaders, who responded to the latest escalation with remarkable unity. The question remains whether they will go so far as to threaten severe consequences against Trump and the United States, especially since the European Union is considered a massive trading bloc capable of exerting influence. However, any retaliatory trade measure could deliver a strong blow to US stock markets, which Trump strives to present as proof of the strength of the economy and prosperity.
Nevertheless, such measures, whether commercial or military, could negatively affect Washington's allies as much as they affect the United States itself, and perhaps more so.
In this context, EU ambassadors held an emergency consultative meeting by phone in Brussels last Sunday, where several leaders of NATO countries, known for their friendly ties with Trump, called for a tougher stance on Greenland, which is part of Denmark and enjoys self-rule.
Clear Concern A clear sense of unease prevails on both sides of the Atlantic over the possibility of NATO's collapse. This scenario, which was considered almost impossible until recently, could constitute a major strategic victory for Russia and China, and perhaps the most dangerous outcome of the destabilizing policies that characterized Trump's two presidential terms.
The US Congress is also increasingly concerned about the president's actions. However, the essential question remains: are there enough Republicans willing to defend NATO as one of the pillars of American global power to the point of risking a rare confrontation with a president from their own party? Despite the emergence of cracks in Trump's power base within Congress, he still commands awe and instills fear in many Republican lawmakers.
Ultimately, it appears that the fate of this threatened alliance is tied to a president who treats the US military as his personal property, without legal or constitutional constraints, and views NATO with contempt as a tool for political extortion. For Trump, annexing Greenland is not just a fleeting political move, but a historic achievement whose symbolic significance surpasses renaming the Kennedy Center or building a new celebration hall in the White House. It could place him alongside American presidents like Thomas Jefferson and William McKinley, whose names are associated with the expansion of the United States.
"The Art of the Deal" Trump sent shockwaves across Europe and North America when he finally escalated his demands on Greenland, citing what he calls his "art of the deal" foreign policy philosophy. He announced his intention to impose a 10% tariff on all goods coming from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland, starting next February 1, with this rate rising to 25% on June 1, pending an agreement.
By not ruling out the use of military force to seize Greenland, Trump risks undermining the foundations of NATO, particularly Article 5, which stipulates the principle of collective defense.
This behavior is driven by a personal obsession, at a time when the American voter shows no real interest in owning the island or bearing its costs, with their primary concern being rising prices and the cost of living after a year of Trump's second term.
In this context, former US Vice President Mike Pence told CNN that the US does indeed have strategic interests in Greenland, however, the methods Trump intends to use to achieve these goals could backfire and harm American interests themselves.
Congressional Intervention Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia are seeking to place restrictions on this policy. They announced during a joint appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" that they are discussing a new resolution concerning their parties' powers on the Greenland issue. They also plan to challenge the new tariffs and assert the existence of a law preventing the president from withdrawing from NATO without congressional approval.
Paul stated that Trump is "fueling tensions" by refusing to rule out the military option, adding that he has not heard of any actual Republican support for this direction, even among the most hardline members of the Republican caucus, many of whom confirmed they would not endorse such a path.
Disagreements NATO has not been immune to disagreements during its 77-year history. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the US opposed the British-French invasion of parts of Egypt. In the 1990s, several European nations expressed their displeasure with Washington's initial hesitation to participate within the NATO framework to stop the war in former Yugoslavia.
With the turn of the 21st century, after a review of the alliance's role in the post-Cold War era, Article 5 was activated for the first time to defend the US following the 9/11 attacks. The alliance subsequently led the military campaign in Afghanistan. However, deep disagreements resurfaced again due to the Iraq War.
European Values Following Trump's declaration of his desire to own Greenland, European leaders toughened their stance towards him after a year of attempts to appease him. For them, the issue is not about territories an American president might annex, but touches upon the essence of European values shaped through centuries of conflict, foremost among which is the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination and the refusal to submit to forces with absolute influence.
In this context, French President Emmanuel Macron wrote on the X platform that his country supports the independence and sovereignty of all nations, affirming that intimidation and threats will not affect this stance, whether the matter concerns Ukraine, Greenland, or anywhere else in the world.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also held phone calls with Trump. Meloni, a populist conservative, stated that she disagrees with the tariffs linked to the Greenland issue.
However, according to observers, calming Trump requires more than just diplomatic statements. The question remains as to whether the Republicans in Congress or NATO allies can convince him that annexing Greenland will come at a high political and personal price.
Source: CNN
Additional Challenges Several indicators suggest that US President Donald Trump's threats could hinder the ratification of the trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. This agreement granted Washington favorable terms, resulting from Europe's realization that it could not risk losing the American security umbrella. The collapse of this agreement or the imposition of retaliatory tariffs could also negatively impact Trump himself, by raising import prices during an election year when voter confidence in his economic performance is waning.
In the event of a NATO collapse, the United States could face additional challenges, including the potential closure of military bases in Britain, Germany, or other countries that Washington relies on to project its influence in the Middle East and Africa, as well as forcing the overburdened US military to bear the burden of defending the Arctic region alone.
In conclusion, this deep imbalance in the relationships within the Western alliance is a key element of the current crisis, just as it is in the case of Trump. The scenario of a NATO collapse, which was considered almost impossible until recently, could constitute a major strategic victory for Russia and China.
