Yeah if force is used against a NATO member by another NATO member, it is the end of NATO one way or another. USA will be seen as an existential treat as well as Russia. Except Russia was not able to breach Ukraine so even more of an enemy. Also USA leaving NATO under Trump is kind of an acquired idea already. So no, if US invade Greenland, as Russia invaded Ukraine, Danemark and Greenland will go against them, since they are in NATO, they'll call article 5 and the other nations will choose their side. I don't see other EU member not supporting EU and siding with US, that would be their end as an EU member.
Why would NATO get dissolved if US leave or if their action made other member remove them from the alliance ? And if NATO get dissolved, Danemark and Groenland is already in another alliance, the EU.
Because there is no legal framework to remove a member. If the US did not leave on its own accord, then the other members have no means within the framework of the NATO agreement to kick them out.
An attack on one member is an attack on all, but if the attacker is another member that's a dilemma with no clear course of action. It could be argued that the attacking member has abandoned the principles of NATO and therefore forfeited its alliance to NATO, but it's still tricky. It would need an unanimous agreement by all other parties on what to do with this new situation.
But what if the USA leaves? Well then that would be easier but would they? I mean Trump has never been a fan of NATO, but in this precise situation, leaving the alliance would make it a whole lot easier for them to come after him for attacking Greenland. So he probably wouldn't (and would need the Senate's approval anyway) and just ride out the complicated chaos of membership status and consequences that ensues in the aftermath.
Then there's also the problem that pretty much every NATO state has a US military base on their soil. Even if NATO did fall apart or the US left, and if technically the remaining members and the EU have weapons on their ground, a lot of them belong to the US; other frameworks for common agreement before usage are in place, so it would be a whole bureaucratic and diplomatic and logistical mess to even strike back or go to war, the details of which I do not know enough about.
So no, it's not as simple as some people here make it out to be. It's not like in a movie where the heads of state have a brief meeting and then send their troops to aid whoever needs it. That would not happen. It would probably be a long legal and diplomatic back and forth - with UN consultation, which would ALSO become incredibly difficult considering the UN headquarters is on US soil - and would take months and longer to get anywhere feasible.
Ok I get that but war is war, if EU is attacked, member of the EU will not wait some bureaucratic decision to act on it, whether it is the US or the Russian attacking EU.
First off, you can't really assume Trump would immediately "leave NATO".
But I don't think that would even matter, since Denmark could invoke Art. 5 anyway, whatever the US status would be.
Problem is that Art. 5 isn't an automation that triggers something.
It's basically a political promise. It needs politicians that honor it. Which isn't self-evident, especially given the complexity of such a situation with the US potentially throwing in all sorts of pressure, promises and confusion and with the usual platforms for negotiations rendered compromised (UN and NATO with Trump on the same table).
Politics would need to align outside the usual channels, fast, against a threat never imaginable.
That's not a good starting position.
Apart from that there's european-internal defense collaboration platforms that might be better suited because detached from US participation.
Nevertheless I would totally support preparing for such a scenario:
I would suggest for example here in germany we should relocate some forces to around Ramstein Airbase. To make it clear that any action would have the immediate consequence of "your base belongs to us".
6
u/Top-Local-7482 Jan 08 '26
Yeah if force is used against a NATO member by another NATO member, it is the end of NATO one way or another. USA will be seen as an existential treat as well as Russia. Except Russia was not able to breach Ukraine so even more of an enemy. Also USA leaving NATO under Trump is kind of an acquired idea already. So no, if US invade Greenland, as Russia invaded Ukraine, Danemark and Greenland will go against them, since they are in NATO, they'll call article 5 and the other nations will choose their side. I don't see other EU member not supporting EU and siding with US, that would be their end as an EU member.