The idea that one NATO country could attack another — a US invasion of Greenland — is so alien that the most famous article in NATO’s founding treaty does not distinguish clearly what would happen if two of its members were at war.
Article 5, the cornerstone of mutual protection, dictates that “an armed attack against one or more” in Europe or North America shall be considered “an attack against them all.” Simple enough if the military threat comes from Russia, but more complicated when it comes from easily the alliance’s most powerful member.
“If the US chooses to attack another NATO country, everything will stop,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen said on Monday.
The military alliance might well continue to exist, but its effectiveness would be called into fundamental question; the obvious beneficiary, an already aggressive Moscow.
During the 2024 US election campaign, US President Donald Trump said he would not protect “delinquent” NATO members; countries that did not meet the then-target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense.
The US was no longer “primarily focused” on defending Europe, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasized in February last year.
It was enough to provoke alarm in Europe, but diplomacy in the run-up to June’s NATO summit appeared to have massaged away the problem. Leavened by the unctuous comments of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte — he called the US president “daddy” — NATO allies, bar Spain, agreed to lift defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2035.
Yet, rather than heal differences in opinion, it appears the NATO summit simply papered over a rift.
“Yes, the summit went well in that Rutte found formulations that flattered Trump. But I’m not sure how far that is a sustainable strategy,” said Marion Messmer, a director at the Chatham House think tank.
There have already been several months of transatlantic uncertainty about Ukraine caused by two failed US efforts to force Kyiv, after the Alaska summit and again with the adoption of the Russian 28-point plan, to give up more territory as a precursor to the Kremlin even considering a ceasefire.
IDEOLOGICAL SHIFT
Last month’s US national security strategy hectored Europe, with its extraordinary warning that the continent faced “civilizational erasure,” partly because, within a few decades, “certain NATO members will become majority non-European.”
On that extreme basis, the strategy questioned if these unnamed countries would view their alliance with the US “in the same way” as did the 12 who founded NATO in 1949.
If the diplomatic dance and the noises were not clear enough, then the re-emergence of the territorial lust for Greenland in the aftermath of the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has finally brought NATO itself sharply into focus, with the US explicitly challenging the historical sovereignty of Denmark, a fellow ally.
Nobody would realistically expect any of NATO’s 31 other members to defend Greenland militarily if the US sought to seize it, a point emphasized by White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller.
The real world was “governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power” — not treaties or mutual support, he said.
Nor would they have any hope of doing so. The US has 1.3 million active military personnel, across all its services; Denmark has 13,100. NATO figures show the US was expected to spend US$845 billion on defense last year, the other 31 allies a combined US$559 billion.
The ease with which the US was able to capture Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is a demonstration of the scale of sheer US power.
The alliance’s membership might not even change even if the US did take Greenland. There is no clear provision in the NATO treaty for expelling a country, although its preamble does commit the US and other allies “to live in peace with all peoples and all governments” and “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples” — wording once intended to be used against a member that became communist during the cold war.
Nevertheless, one alliance member turning on another, even over an Arctic territory with a population of less than 60,000, would undermine the credibility of the 76-year-old military alliance, intended to ensure peace and mutual protection across Europe and the North Atlantic region.
Even the latest round of threats, some argue, has caused enough damage at a time when the Russian menace has never felt more real, even if Moscow is currently heavily embroiled in Ukraine.
“If any European states harbor any illusions they can rely on US security guarantees, then this is the wake-up call we are not returning to that world,” Messmer said.
Dan Sabbagh is defense and security editor at the Guardian.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
RSS