Greenland, the end of NATO?

What would be the consequences for Europe if US forces were to occupy Greenland?

In his statement at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump claimed that Mar-a-Lago wanted to take possession of Greenland because Mar-a-Lago was the only power that could defend Greenland (against Russia and China), but that he could only do so if Greenland belonged to him legally and was not just leased.

He also said that he would not use force to get Greenland, but would offer Europe the option of taking over Greenland: ‘You can say yes, and we would be very grateful, or you can say no, and we will remember that.’ [1]

Preparations seem to be underway

No use of force? Meanwhile, in the USA, the 11th Airborne Division has been placed on alert to be deployed to Minnesota, which some media outlets view as a threat under the Insurrection Act. However, this would be completely absurd, as Malcolm Nance [2], a former Senior Chief of the US Navy, US intelligence officer and legionnaire in the Ukrainian army, explains in an interview [3]. The 11th Airborne Division is the only US military force trained and equipped for combat in the Arctic, while many other US military forces would be available for deployment in Minnesota. According to Nance, the 11th Division cannot be deployed from its home base in Alaska to Greenland because Canada would then close its airspace and waters. From Minnesota, the division would have much more freedom to deploy to Greenland.

But what would happen if Trump took Greenland by force? Would that be the end of NATO? Nance predicts a different outcome: the other 31 member states would expel the USA, take over all US military bases in Europe, and send all US troops stationed in Europe home. Some states, such as Hungary or Slovakia (and Turkey), could then opt for neutrality, but NATO as such would continue to exist, Nance believes.

Risk: an authoritarian Europe

Personally, I think that a slightly different scenario could be triggered by an attempt to conquer Greenland by force. Firstly, a weakened West would no longer be able to resist Russia’s campaign in Ukraine and would ultimately have to negotiate a peace treaty for Europe with Russia. As part of such a treaty, the EU would have to become neutral, and NATO would be replaced by an EU military structure that defends its neutrality.  In other words, a US military strike against Greenland could achieve what Russia’s attack on Ukraine failed to do. 

Wishful thinking? [4] A neutral EU could come as a relief to the world, but it may be less pleasant for the people of Europe, depending on whether or not the current European leaders and their masters will be held accountable by voters for their warmongering.

PS: Mineral resources

The US already tried to annex Greenland once before. In 1941, they were allowed to establish a military base on Greenland, which was of crucial importance to the Allies during the Second World War. When the war ended, the US wanted to buy Greenland. Denmark refused, but allowed the US almost unrestricted military use of the island. In 1966, however, the USA decided to cease its large-scale nuclear weapons activities at Camp Century in Greenland, leaving behind thousands of tonnes of waste, including radioactive waste [5] [6]. Why would they now want back what they left behind? It’s the resources, stupid! And other countries are hoping for the same in the Arctic [7].

Addendum, 22.01.2026

Today in Davos, Trump struck a deal with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, speaking on behalf of European leaders who are all too willing to kowtow. Mar-a-Lago gets almost everything it wanted: more US troops in Greenland, more European military investment in Arctic security, and US co-determination over the use of Greenland’s mineral resources. Mar-a-Lago is therefore refraining, for the time being, from annexing Greenland and launching military and tariff offensives. Bottom line: Europe has missed one of its most obvious opportunities to stand up to the Mafia boss in the room and will therefore become even weaker than before.

---

References:
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/#flips-6388044524112
[2] https://substack.com/@malcolmnance
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgiN02_TLv8
[4] https://blog.billo.ch/archiv/4506, see paragraph ’Neutrales Europa ohne Nato’
[5] https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/126180-000-A/groenland-der-neue-rohstoffrausch
[6] The Conversation, 22.01.2026: «What a US military base lost under Greenland’s ice sheet reveals about the island’s real strategic importance»
[7] https://blog.think.fish/archive/1758, see paragraph ’Race in the far North, not only in Greenland’