NATO Forces Deploy to Greenland: Is the Alliance at Risk of Collapse?
Dr. Mohamad Kawas – Progress Center for Policies
Situation Assessment
Introduction
In an unprecedented development in NATO’s history, Denmark and several allied nations have deployed reconnaissance forces to Greenland in response to the U.S. President’s declared intention to take control of the island. This move reflects a rare European posture aligned with Denmark and openly opposed to Washington, raising the specter of a fundamental rupture within the Western military alliance.
⸻
Facts and Developments
• 15 January 2026: Russia voiced concern over NATO countries dispatching troops to Greenland after multiple allies announced the start of reconnaissance deployments.
• 14 January 2026: Following a White House meeting with U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance—attended by Greenland’s foreign minister—Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said there was a “fundamental disagreement” between Denmark and the United States over Greenland.
• Rasmussen stated that it was “not at all necessary” for the United States to seize Greenland, adding: “We have not been able to change the U.S. position… It is clear that the President has a desire to invade Greenland, and we have made it very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom.”
• 15 January 2026: Germany, France, Sweden, and Norway announced they were sending reconnaissance forces to join previously deployed Danish units.
• On the same day, Danish Deputy Prime Minister Múte Egede said that “NATO troops will become increasingly present in Greenland starting today and in the coming days, with more flights and military ships expected,” referencing upcoming “maneuvers.”
• 14 January 2026: Denmark’s Ministry of Defense announced an expanded military presence on the island—including additional aircraft, ships, and troops—to strengthen “the alliance’s footprint in the Arctic region” in support of European and Atlantic security.
• Although NATO as an organization has not issued a formal statement, Danish officials indicated “close cooperation with NATO allies” and implicit alignment within the alliance on Greenland’s strategic importance.
• 12 January 2026: Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned, “If the United States chooses to launch a military attack on another NATO member state, everything will end—including the alliance and the security system that has existed since World War II. I will do everything in my power to prevent this.”
• 11 January 2026: The Daily Mail reported that President Trump ordered U.S. Special Operations Command to prepare a plan to invade Greenland.
• Senior military leaders—including the Joint Chiefs of Staff—are said to oppose the plan, arguing that it would lack congressional support and needlessly provoke confrontation with key allies, particularly Denmark, which holds sovereignty over the island.
• Greenland is of exceptional geostrategic value: it is the world’s largest island (five times the size of California) and contains 25 of the 34 known rare-earth minerals, along with significant hydrocarbon potential.
• U.S. assessments from 2007 estimated more than 30 billion barrels of oil and gas beneath Greenland’s land and waters—roughly equivalent to U.S. reserves.
• In 2021, Greenland’s (then left-leaning) government banned oil and gas exploration for environmental reasons.
• Analysts highlight Washington’s interest in preventing Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic through expanded U.S. basing (e.g., the Pituffik Space Base established in 1950) and exploitation of rare-earth resources.
• The United States previously offered to buy Greenland from Denmark in 1946 for USD 100 million; Denmark refused but secretly agreed to the establishment of the U.S. Thule Air Base, revealed only in 1991.
• China has pursued rare-earth mining projects in Greenland, while the EU seeks to restrict them; Beijing also views the island as a potential route for emerging Arctic shipping lanes.
• Russia, meanwhile, considers NATO’s military buildup a direct strategic challenge in the Arctic and fears the establishment of new U.S. nuclear-capable bases.
• NATO experts warn that the confrontation over Greenland represents an existential crisis for the alliance: Article 5—collective defense—would be invalidated if the United States, NATO’s strongest member, attacks Greenland, part of Denmark, a founding member. Such a scenario could collapse the alliance after 76 years, benefiting Russia and China.
⸻
Conclusion
• The Greenland crisis represents the most existential challenge in NATO’s history, strong enough to prompt allied troop deployments to counter a U.S. threat against Denmark.
• While the European deployment is symbolic and reconnaissance-focused, any U.S. military action would threaten the unity and survival of NATO, established in 1947.
• The crisis compounds broader tensions created by President Trump’s stance on Ukraine—seen as aligned with Russian interests—and his repeated complaints about unequal burden-sharing within the alliance.
• The Danish foreign minister’s remarks following his White House meeting indicate NATO has been informed of Washington’s readiness to use military force should negotiations fail to resolve Trump’s demands.
• With senior Pentagon leaders reportedly opposing a military operation lacking congressional authorization, institutional pressure is mounting against Trump’s options.
• European states sending even symbolic forces to Greenland sets a dangerous precedent, reflecting the deepest transatlantic rift since Trump’s first term.
• Analysts agree that while Trump frames the issue in terms of national security, his motivations are primarily economic, linked to Greenland’s mineral wealth and energy resources.
• Should Trump pursue the military option, European withdrawal from NATO becomes plausible, triggering alliance collapse and accelerating debates on a unified European defense force—even a joint EU army.
• A potential U.S.–EU militarization of Greenland, coupled with Russian concern, could ignite a new flashpoint in the Arctic, raising the risk of U.S.–Russian confrontation.
• The potential disintegration of NATO would represent a seismic shift in the international order established after World War II and redraw global alignments developed since the Soviet Union’s collapse.
