Annexing Greenland risks shattering NATO

No serious defense analyst disputes the importance Greenland holds for American defense. Positioned on the rapidly warming Arctic Ocean, any attack on America or the North Atlantic would involve some use of Greenlandic territory or airspace. Denmark is a loyal ally and has recently committed to a major upgrade of its defense commitment to the huge island, but it cannot possibly deploy enough forces to ensure it remains secure from enemy intrusion in the event of war.

The problem for Trump is that existing treaties already give America nearly carte blanche to do what it wants to protect itself. The Danes have furthermore said they are willing to allow America to station the forces it wants there. Annexing the island would thus serve little to no purpose while violating the North Atlantic Treaty and international law.

One could argue that American sovereignty over the island is needed to prevent a future Danish government or a recalcitrant Greenlandic one — Greenland is an autonomous nation within the Danish Realm — from changing its mind. That’s true, but that simply means America should use the favor it has now to dramatically increase its force posture there while it can. Once the troops are there, it would be folly for a future government to try to kick out a military it cannot remove by force.

Greenland’s supposedly copious reserves of valuable minerals do not change the calculus. It remains unclear how many of those sites can be economically mined. Denmark and Greenland would likely welcome a firm commitment to develop those resources and would surely prefer to engage American companies to do that rather than submit to Chinese pressure. Trump can push diplomatically to secure that treaty commitment and use his domestic power to push or reward American firms that invest there.

In sum, the gains to the U.S. from annexing Greenland are small so long as it moves expeditiously to secure what it wants and needs via treaty.

The downside of annexation, on the other hand, is huge. The NATO alliance remains the bedrock of American security despite the relative weakness of many NATO allies’ militaries. Annexation would sever those ties, a catastrophic loss for American security.

NATO’s value does not, counterintuitively, rest in its military component. Trump is right that most allies have systematically underinvested in their armies for decades and are too reliant on American power. While that is changing, largely because of Trump’s pressure, it will take years of sustained investment for most NATO countries to be able to shoulder a fair share of the alliance’s burden in the event of a major war.

NATO’s primary value to America comes about because it aligns a large global economic bloc with U.S. interests. NATO countries other than the U.S. have a combined GDP of nearly $40 trillion measured by the International Monetary Fund’s Purchasing Power Parity standard. That’s larger than America’s and nearly 20% of the global total.

The entire NATO alliance, therefore, controls about 35% of global output. Combined with America’s other major allies, such as those in the Pacific Basin and Israel, the West is economically dominant. It can withstand any assault from any possible combination of foes, even including China, so long as it stays united.

Sever the NATO alliance, however, and America faces a much more hazardous situation. Europe is rich but relatively defenseless at present. It could gain the self-confidence to become a global power, but in that case, it would be one that would also harbor significant resentment against America. It could easily decide that a Chinese-American conflict is not in its interest to join and could even back China to break American power.

Experience tells us that military victory in modern warfare goes either to the technologically superior forces, which can use that edge to destroy their enemy quickly, or to the economically more dominant side that can grind its foe into submission over time. Israel’s recent triumph over Iran is an example of the first scenario, while Russia’s war of attrition in Ukraine is an attempt to procure the second.

A neutral Europe means American ability to wage and win a war of attrition is dramatically lessened. The chances of a conflict with China would therefore increase, as any rational Chinese leader would conclude the chance of a quick victory in one region would be less likely to be overturned by a sustained Western economic and military pressure.

Dissolution of the European-American alliance would have knock-on effects across the globe. Our Pacific allies would know their collective power has been dramatically lessened by Europe’s decoupling from America. Their collective fear of China might keep them in America’s orbit, but over time, it might be in some nation’s interest to align more with China.

South Korea would be a prime candidate for such persuasion. It already has significant economic ties with China, and those ties will likely become relatively more important if America continues to put trade barriers on Korean exports. A neutral South Korea could push American troops out of that country, which in turn makes Japan’s strategic position more tenuous.

IT’S TIME FOR TRUMP TO RECOGNIZE SOMALILAND

The fact is that American security depends on maintaining a robust alliance with wealthy, democratic nations everywhere. That alliance structure needs to be balanced — it can no longer rely on implicit and explicit subsidies from America’s military and consumers. A rebalanced alliance structure that allocates the costs of defense and self-sufficiency more evenly, however, still helps all member nations stay free.

“America First” cannot mean “America Alone”. The threats emanating from Trump and his staff about seizing Greenland are foolishly counterproductive. Better to continue on the already rocky road of recasting NATO as a more militarily robust grouping than risk destroying it over Greenland.