Trump's threat in Greenland shakes NATO: "It wasn't foreseen even in our worst nightmares"

ParisWhen Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, there was little doubt that the US president would distance himself from Europe and unsettle NATO. But a year later, Trump's actions are far more disturbing than anyone could have predicted.Not only does he utterly despise European countries and their leaders, but he has also shamelessly ignored international norms to capture the president of Venezuela and seize control of the country. Now he is threatening Greenland, the autonomous Arctic territory belonging to Denmark, a member of the European Union and NATO. If he follows through on this threat, the consequences for the Atlantic Alliance could be devastating.

Europe is bewildered and frightened. Especially after the warning about the Arctic island. "We need Greenland for national security. We must be there. If we're not there, we can't guarantee either national or international security; right now, Greenland is full of Russian and Chinese ships everywhere," Trump stated a few days ago, although there is currently no evidence of ships flying Russian flags. In contrast, Washington has a military base there, and the territory is rich in mineral resources.

After the attack on Venezuela to end the Maduro regime, no one takes threats about the European island lightly anymore. Until recently, it was unthinkable that the United States would dare to threaten one of the members of the Atlantic Alliance. Now the impossible has become a very real possibility. Washington prioritizes "buying" Greenland, but does not rule out the use of military force to take control"The president and his team are discussing various options to achieve this important foreign policy objective, and naturally, the use of the U.S. military is always an option available to the commander-in-chief," White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.

Unprecedented scenario

What would happen if one NATO member attacked another ally? The Alliance's statutes do not contemplate aggression between members, and if Trump were to opt for military force, the action would represent a turning point for NATO, a crisis with unpredictable consequences. "There are precedents, particularly with the historical dispute between Greece and Turkey, but here we are facing a scenario that has never been foreseen, not even in NATO's worst nightmares," said a NATO spokesperson. General Jérôme Pellistrandi, a defense expert, admitted this in an interview on the French network BFMTV. "It would be a crisis the likes of which the West has never known," she warned. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has raised the possibility of a rupture within the Alliance. "If the United States militarily attacks another NATO country, then everything stops, including our NATO and, therefore, the security system established since the end of the Second World War," she asserted this week. In France, former President François Hollande also maintains that the Atlantic Alliance is at risk should Washington militarily attack Greenland. "I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but if there were a US military intervention in Greenland, it would be the end of NATO," he stated on France Info. An attack by one ally on another would constitute a violation of the Alliance's treaty preamble, according to which its members commit to "preserving peace and security." "NATO is clearly not designed to wage war against its members. It has always been one of its main aversions," argues historian Stéphane Audrand in Le FigaroHowever, according to the historian in the French conservative newspaper, if Trump attacks Greenland, the allies would hardly dare to confront the United States, the world's leading military power. "No one [in Europe] is willing to fight against the US, much less for Greenland," Audrand asserts.

NATO Criticism

Since his first term, the US president has not held back in his criticism of NATO and its allies. This Wednesday, he questioned whether the Alliance's member countries are truly committed to the US. "I doubt NATO would be there for us if we really needed it," he wrote on Truth Social. Article 5 of the Alliance, which establishes the principle of collective defense among the allies, It has only been activated once in history, and that was precisely to help the United States after the September 11 attacks.

Faced with Donald Trump's imperialist attitude and alarming threats, Europeans are trying to avoid escalating their rhetoric and to contain their criticism. The dilemma is clear: Washington's support for Ukraine—and the peace guarantees currently being negotiated—is crucial for Europeans. At stake is not only the future of Ukraine, but also the security of Europe. If NATO was created in 1949 to protect its allies from the Russian threat after World War II, 77 years later, it is more necessary than ever to ensure that Moscow does not attack European countries.The breakdown of the Alliance in the current geopolitical context would have enormous risks that are difficult to assess.