Why Trump’s Greenland Remarks Expose the Power Imbalance Inside NATO

Soon after the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, senior officials in the administration of U.S. President “Donald Trump” made an extraordinary claim: Greenland, an autonomous territory belonging to Denmark, should become part of the United States. Denmark has firmly rejected the idea, making clear it has no intention of ceding Greenland. Analysts warn that any attempt by Washington to forcibly take over the territory would strike at the very foundations of the “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” (NATO), potentially triggering its collapse.

The controversy has brought into sharp focus not just the geopolitics of the Arctic, but also the deep economic and military asymmetries that underpin NATO — asymmetries that the Trump administration appears increasingly willing to exploit.

What is at stake with Greenland?

Greenland is strategically critical. Located in the Arctic, it sits astride emerging sea routes, hosts valuable mineral resources, and already accommodates U.S. military facilities under long-standing agreements with Denmark. However, sovereignty over Greenland lies with Denmark, which is itself a NATO member.

A unilateral U.S. move against Danish territory would create an unprecedented crisis within NATO: an alliance designed to defend members against external threats would be confronted with aggression by one member against another. Most experts agree such a scenario would effectively paralyse — if not destroy — the alliance.

Understanding NATO’s original purpose

NATO was established in 1949 with three core objectives:

• To deter Soviet expansionism during the Cold War
• To prevent the resurgence of aggressive nationalism in Europe through a strong North American presence
• To encourage political integration and stability in Europe

With 32 members today — including most European Union states, the UK, Canada, Norway and the US — NATO is widely regarded as the most powerful military alliance in history. Its combined economic and military weight is often cited as a key reason why a third world war has been avoided.

The imbalance beneath NATO’s strength

Behind NATO’s collective might lies a stark internal disparity. The United States overwhelmingly dominates the alliance economically and militarily. By 2025, U.S. annual economic output exceeded the combined GDP of all other NATO members — a dramatic reversal from just over a decade earlier.

In 2014, the U.S. economy stood at about $17.6 trillion, while the rest of NATO together accounted for roughly $20.5 trillion. Since then, the U.S. has added around $13 trillion to its GDP, while the remaining NATO economies collectively grew by only about $6 trillion. Sluggish growth and stagnation in major European economies such as Germany and the UK have widened this gap.

Economic power and defence dominance

This economic divergence translates directly into military power. The U.S. not only spends more on defence in absolute terms than any other NATO member, it also allocates a significantly larger share of its GDP to defence. As a result, American defence expenditure dwarfs that of the rest of the alliance combined, both overall and on a per-capita basis.

The only area where the U.S. does not outmatch all other NATO members combined is troop numbers. Even here, however, the U.S. alone accounts for nearly 40% of NATO’s total military personnel — an extraordinary concentration of manpower within a 32-country alliance.

Why Trump’s stance resonates inside Washington

President Trump has long criticised NATO allies for “free-riding” on U.S. security guarantees. The Greenland episode reflects this worldview: that America’s disproportionate economic and military contribution entitles it to demand greater strategic concessions from weaker allies.

From this perspective, Greenland is not merely a territorial question but a symbol of how far U.S. power extends within NATO — and how limited Europe’s ability is to resist Washington if pushed to the brink.

The wider implications for NATO’s future

The Greenland controversy exposes a fundamental tension at the heart of NATO. The alliance’s credibility rests on collective defence and shared norms, yet its internal balance increasingly resembles a hegemon surrounded by far weaker partners.

If U.S. power continues to grow relative to its allies — and if that power is wielded coercively rather than cooperatively — NATO risks being hollowed out from within. The Greenland episode may therefore be less about Arctic geopolitics and more about a deeper question: can an alliance built on shared values survive when one member so thoroughly outweighs all the others?

In that sense, Trump’s remarks have revealed not just a diplomatic flashpoint, but a structural vulnerability that could shape NATO’s future for years to come.