Most people retire by age 70. In March, NATO turns 77. Seven years ago, U.S. President Donald Trump was joined by Barry Posen, a so-called realist political scientist, in suggesting that it may be time for the alliance to retire as well.
US President Donald Trump's determination to take Greenland by hook or by crook would spell the end of NATO-the "end of everything," as Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, put it. But would it be the end of "everything" exactly? Certainly, it would be the catalyst for the end of the world order as we know it, but nothing appears to be putting Trump off his stroke.
As of late 2023/early 2024, U.S. law requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate for the U.S. to formally withdraw, making a total, abrupt exit legally complex. Yet even without formal withdrawal, a U.S. administration could "sabotage" NATO by refusing to support Article 5 (collective defence), rendering the alliance dormant.
The next move on the Arctic NATO member could come within "weeks," according to a U.S. official speaking to USA Today. What shape that move will take is anyone's guess. Denmark and Greenland have long been open to the US military on the island, along with access to its bountiful natural resources and minerals.
So what is driving Trump towards a goal that risks an international crisis and the collapse of the transatlantic alliance, which has provided the West's defence since the Second World War? Some believe it is simply a question of Greenland's size, which looks bigger on a map than it actually is. In fact, Greenland is around the size of Alaska or Saudi Arabia.
Speaking in 2021 to New Yorker journalist Susan Glasser, Trump indicated his motives were those of a real estate agent: "I love maps. And I always said, 'Look at the size of this; it's massive, and that should be part of the United States.'" "It's not different from a real estate deal," Trump added. "It's just a little bit larger, to put it mildly."
If Trump pushes the acquisition of Greenland, whether through force or a coercive sale, NATO is unlikely to survive the aggression of one member against another. Trump has played on Europe's fears of a NATO collapse, while in fact the US has as much to lose from such an outcome, something that should be shouted from the rooftops.
If NATO disbanded, the US would no longer be able to position its military bases in Europe, some of which are used to support US military operations in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. European leaders would no longer feel obliged to mute their response to Trump's unbridled domestic and foreign schemes, such as the strike on Venezuela.
Neither would Europe's leaders have to swallow Trump's tariffs without retaliating, exacerbating unemployment as well as consumer prices, as both American importers and exporters would be affected. This extends to the economic realm. U.S. annual trade in goods and services with Europe exceeds $1 trillion, and U.S. total direct investment in Europe nears $3 trillion. These economic ties enhance U.S. prosperity and provide American jobs, but they require the degree of security now provided by NATO to endure.
The massive arms deals that the US benefits from with both Europe and the UK would be ditched, as America would no longer be considered a trusted ally. Moreover, tech tycoons could be taxed and regulated to the hilt, and US consumer goods could be boycotted as they already are in Canada.
Meanwhile, Europe would have to scramble together a security pact of its own, which would be costly and could require military conscription, but would be viable at a stretch. Europe would be forced to drastically increase defence spending, potentially needing an additional €250 billion annually and 300,000 extra troops to match current deterrence levels.
A breakup could force European nations to either form a unified, independent military alliance, possibly a European Army, or fall into smaller, competing coalitions. But key European nations, such as Germany, might feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrents, increasing volatility.
Other downsides for Europe would be a block on things like software updates and credit card access. But the main risk would be the Trump administration fragmenting the European bloc by getting far-right countries such as Hungary and Italy on side.
Altogether, the breakup of NATO would mean a massive upheaval on all sides, both for Europe and for America, but Trump appears to think that the ability to say the US actually owns Greenland is worth the pain.
The collapse would be a major victory for China, allowing it to expand its influence with fewer restrictions.
The most catastrophic impact of NATO's retirement would be the risk of Russian aggression and miscalculation. Without a clear commitment to defend allied territory backed up by an American nuclear deterrent, President Vladimir Putin will certainly see opportunities to seize land he believes is Russian. He has already done this in Georgia and Ukraine. Had they not joined NATO, the Baltic states would probably already be occupied by Russian troops. Certainly, Putin would also see an opportunity to seize more of Ukraine without the "shadow" of NATO to protect it.
The added insecurity of NATO's collapse would also amplify current populist movements in Europe. The consequence could be renationalisation of European militaries, a system that brought conflict to the 19th and early 20th centuries.