If the U.S. Moves on Greenland: Why a Military Takeover Would Shake NATO and the Global Order

Speculation about an American military takeover of Greenland — once dismissed as political theatre — is now being discussed seriously enough to alarm allies and adversaries alike. Such a move would not merely redraw Arctic geopolitics; it would strike at the foundations of NATO, embolden Russia and China, unsettle Europe, and potentially accelerate nuclear proliferation. The contradictions at the heart of the idea reveal why Greenland could become one of the most destabilising flashpoints of the decade.

Why Greenland matters strategically

Greenland sits astride the Arctic routes linking North America and Europe. As ice melts and shipping lanes open, the island’s location, radar coverage, and undersea access have grown in importance. The United States already maintains a military presence there under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark, which administers Greenland as an autonomous territory.

Washington’s stated concern is that Russia and China are expanding their Arctic footprint. While there is evidence of growing Sino-Russian cooperation in Arctic energy and military exercises, U.S. defence assessments consistently point to the waters around Alaska — not Greenland — as the main theatre of activity.

NATO’s existential dilemma

The most immediate casualty of any U.S. military action in Greenland would be the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NATO’s core principle, enshrined in Article 5, is collective defence: an attack on one member is an attack on all.

Denmark, a founding NATO member, has indicated that it would invoke Article 5 if its territorial integrity were violated. This would place the alliance in an unprecedented predicament — its most powerful member acting against another ally. NATO was never designed to handle such a scenario.

The irony is stark. Denmark was among the first to invoke Article 5 after the September 11 attacks, and Danish soldiers fought and died alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan. A U.S. move on Greenland would shatter trust and could render NATO functionally irrelevant.

How Moscow and Beijing would benefit

A fractured NATO would be a strategic windfall for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Any diversion of NATO’s attention from Ukraine or erosion of alliance unity strengthens Moscow’s hand. The very institution created to counter Soviet power would be undermined from within.

China, too, would gain indirectly. While Beijing’s Arctic ambitions are primarily economic, the weakening of Western cohesion would expand its diplomatic and strategic room for manoeuvre. An American action framed as countering Russia and China could, paradoxically, advance their interests.

The U.S. already has access — without force

One of the least coherent aspects of the Greenland push is that Washington already enjoys extensive rights there. During the Cold War, the U.S. operated 17 bases in Greenland; most were closed because Washington deemed them unnecessary, not because Denmark objected.

If the United States wants to expand its footprint, it can do so through existing treaties. A military takeover would add little operational value while imposing enormous political costs.

Domestic politics behind the Greenland idea

The push for Greenland appears driven less by strategic necessity than by domestic constituencies around President Donald Trump. Tech investor Peter Thiel has floated ideas of libertarian “post-nation” settlements. Elon Musk has expressed interest in rare earth resources beneath Greenland’s ice. Ronald Lauder, another Trump confidant, is said to have encouraged the idea early on.

Trump himself reportedly views Greenland through a real-estate lens — as an asset to be acquired. This instinct collides directly with geopolitical reality. Denmark has categorically ruled out any sale, and even discussing one could topple governments in Copenhagen or Nuuk.

Ripple effects: Canada, Europe and nuclear anxiety

Canada would be among the most immediately affected countries. A U.S.-controlled Greenland would effectively encircle Canada’s Arctic approaches, intensifying debates in Ottawa about strategic autonomy and even nuclear deterrence.

If NATO credibility collapses, other allies could follow suit. Germany and Poland may reconsider long-standing nuclear restraint. In Asia, Japan and South Korea — already anxious about U.S. reliability — could draw similar conclusions. What begins as an Arctic gambit could cascade into a broader nuclear arms race.

Why Greenland could redefine alliance politics

At stake is more than territory. NATO’s strength lies in trust, predictability and respect for sovereignty. As U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen noted while introducing the NATO Unity Protection Act, the alliance cannot survive if members fear coercion from within.

A military move on Greenland would signal that alliances are conditional and transactional — eroding the very logic that underpins collective security.

The Arctic is undoubtedly emerging as a strategic frontier. But if Greenland becomes the site where alliance norms collapse, the damage will extend far beyond the polar ice. In trying to secure its dominance, Washington risks unravelling the architecture that has underwritten Western security for over seven decades.