Why Greenland Spat Could See The End Of NATO

NATO has survived wars, recessions and internal rows — but it has never faced a direct coercive threat from its own leading power. That is what makes the Greenland crisis so dangerous.

At the heart of the alliance is a simple premise: no member uses military, economic or political force against another. Trump’s threat to punish NATO allies with tariffs unless they accept a U.S. takeover of Greenland shatters that assumption.

Senior diplomats are already saying the quiet part out loud. If one ally economically or militarily coerces another, Article 5 becomes meaningless. Collective defence cannot function when allies fear retaliation from inside the tent.

The danger is not just Greenland. It is precedent.

If Washington can weaponise tariffs to force territorial concessions, what stops future U.S. demands on basing rights, defence procurement, intelligence sharing or Arctic command structures? European capitals fear NATO could morph from a mutual defence pact into a hierarchical system enforced by economic pressure.

That is why European leaders are openly discussing counter-measures once considered unthinkable: restricting U.S. base privileges, blocking trade deals, targeting American tech firms and energy exports.

Former diplomats warn that once retaliation begins, NATO unity may not survive the second round, let alone the fifth. As one put it bluntly: “When one ally turns on another, there is no way back.”

This is not brinkmanship. It is an existential stress test — and NATO has never looked more fragile.

Markets Angle: How Ugly Retaliation Could Get

The political fallout is severe. The economic fallout could be brutal.

Trump’s proposed tariffs — rising to 25% on exports from eight NATO allies — risk triggering a full transatlantic trade war between the world’s two largest economic blocs.

Europe’s response would not be symbolic.

Brussels’ £81bn “anti-coercion instrument” allows sweeping retaliation: blocking U.S. firms from public contracts, restricting market access, revoking licences and imposing targeted tariffs designed to hurt politically sensitive sectors.

That means:

• U.S. energy exports — Europe buys roughly half of America’s LNG and crude.

• Tech giants — fines of up to 10% of global turnover, data-transfer bans, regulatory exclusion.

• Defence firms — potential exclusion from European procurement.

• Financial services — regulatory pressure on U.S. banks and funds operating in Europe.

Markets hate uncertainty — and this crisis creates it in bulk.

Analysts warn Britain alone could face multi-billion-pound export losses, while Germany’s industrial base would be squeezed between U.S. tariffs and EU retaliation costs. Energy prices could spike. Supply chains could fracture. Investor confidence would wobble.

And crucially, there are no pain-free options.

Europe knows retaliation would hurt its own economies. But officials increasingly argue that inaction also carries a cost: accepting a future where trade access, security guarantees and sovereignty are conditional on U.S. political demands.

As one EU official put it privately: “This is no longer about economics. It’s about whether the West still functions as a rules-based system — or as a protection racket.”

Either way, markets are bracing. Once this escalates, there may be no off-ramp.

ASEANNOW ORIGINAL CONTENT

"They're not cattle. You cannot buy them."

Former Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller is the last person to negotiate a treaty between Denmark and the U.S.

Shane Smith spoke with him about why he's shocked at Trump's advances at Greenland considering the military history

Former Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller advocates for the Greenland people in the wake of the Trump Administration's efforts to buy the territory.

Breaking NATO is one of Putin's primary goals. Not a surprise Donald Trump would finally chip in, as he has tried to help Putin in every way possible. Interesting, as this could trigger real economic consequences. Donald is already howling about increasing tariffs but this is a line he cant bully countries to do. Tit for tat tariff spat could happen.

Still, as the dollar trends down, now is the time for expats, living one SS check to the next, to take note & stock up.
Cheers

If NATO goes America will lose bases and facilities not just in Europe but around the world. Not such a bad thing really.

A new Nato type organisation without the US would probably be a lot safer and less conflict or wars for all concerned Europe Canada Australia NZ maybe even a few more.

Who will Australia and New Zealand side with ?

EU and Canada?

One can only hope. USA out of NATO, and Europe would be lovely.

Paying each resident of Greenland to break away from Denmark would be a bargain. 500k to each resident, would only cost <30 billion USD. Musk could even spring for that, as pocket change for him.

We could debate the merits of NATO all day long and whether or not US participation in NATO is beneficial or not. But it's kind of hard to debate the merits of taking over a country by force because you claim that there is a national security issue at stake. That's just warmongering, power mongering, and an incredibly insecure, and impotent moron, attempting to flex his very tiny muscles. And like so many other adventures that America has engaged in overseas over the last 80 years, it would likely not end well for the US.

The number of overseas failures the US has engaged in are too numerous to count, and I'm not sure if anyone could come up with any success stories, any democracy building stories, or any benefits to the nations that America has invaded. And even though the US military might be the most powerful in the world, I think an argument could be made that they are far from being the smartest of the armed forces around the world.

There are so many aspects of America and the goon, that are moronic in nature these days, that they are too numerous to list.

If the left wants a cool calm President in the future I'll give you a gentle hint.

Do not storm his house in the middle of the night and raid his wifes panty drawers. No surprise the left now have to deal with Nuclear Trump. Som nom naa 😅🤣😂

3 hours ago, Bannoi said:

If NATO goes America will lose bases and facilities not just in Europe but around the world. Not such a bad thing really.

A new Nato type organisation without the US would probably be a lot safer and less conflict or wars for all concerned Europe Canada Australia NZ maybe even a few more.

Yes. As has been said, Putin's goal (and Trump is playing along with it, wittingly or unwittingly - "kompromat"?) is to dismantle NATO. If however NATO morphs into a European rather than North Atlantic based alliance that doesn't actually achieve anything for Putin. The MAD nuclear balance between the US and Russia remains (Europe was always a sideshow in that); Europe retains it's independent nuclear deterrents in the shape of France (the UK is probably too closely tied to the US, and if the split with the US continues post Trump will need to be rethought) and in conventional terms NATO remains an effective force.

The US bases and Naval operations in Europe, whilst nominally for NATO are really there to support US power projection into the Middle East and perhaps Africa. Without logistical support from Europe, for example, the US 6th Fleet would be hamstrung.

5 hours ago, JAG said:

Yes. As has been said, Putin's goal (and Trump is playing along with it, wittingly or unwittingly - "kompromat"?) is to dismantle NATO. If however NATO morphs into a European rather than North Atlantic based alliance that doesn't actually achieve anything for Putin. The MAD nuclear balance between the US and Russia remains (Europe was always a sideshow in that); Europe retains it's independent nuclear deterrents in the shape of France (the UK is probably too closely tied to the US, and if the split with the US continues post Trump will need to be rethought) and in conventional terms NATO remains an effective force.

The US bases and Naval operations in Europe, whilst nominally for NATO are really there to support US power projection into the Middle East and perhaps Africa. Without logistical support from Europe, for example, the US 6th Fleet would be hamstrung.

The Russian newspapers are full of it cheering Trump on encouraging him to take Greenland. (I'm sure he's very pleased about that ecstatic even)

Trumps assertion that there are numerous Russian and Chinese ships and subs lurking ready to take over Greenland is laughable.

There may be the odd Russian one to or from the Atlantic passing through but thats all and in order to get from Russia and the North Atlantic to the Atlantic Ocean they have to travel through either the gap between Canada - Greenland - Iceland - UK or around the coast of Norway though the North Sea and the English Channel all under the control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NATO

Meanwhile European political and military leaders are now increasingly starting to see the USA as a strategic adversary instead of an ally.

I agree 100% all the US bases around the world are not there the protect the countries they are in but more to project the US military power and influence.

They are there for rapid deployment, intelligence gathering, and most importantly maintaining U.S. influence.

They have bases in hundreds of countries but the biggest concentration of personnel and equipment are in Japan South Korea and Germany in that order.

Obviously the US feels their biggest treat comes from China or North Korea do we in Europe really want to be part of that.

It's no coincidence that the US spends more on its military (supposedly defence) than the next 10 countries combined that includes countries like China, Russia, UK, France, India, Japan, Ukraine.

It would be ironic if Trumps push for Greenland actually disbands NATO and diminishes that influence.

The US has started and been involved in more wars since WW2 any other country. They are very good at starting wars just not so good at winning or ending them satisfactorily.

7 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

If the left wants a cool calm President in the future I'll give you a gentle hint.

Do not storm his house in the middle of the night and raid his wifes panty drawers. No surprise the left now have to deal with Nuclear Trump. Som nom naa 😅🤣😂

All together now, stre-e-e-e-e-e-etch, and clu-u-u-u-u-u-utch.

So what's this? Will they Nuke Nuuk ?

Text of Trump's message to Norways prime Minister

Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT

Now the blowhard-in-chief has suggested that he may have been "misinformed" about why several EU nations sent some of their military to Greenland.

What's there to be misinformed about here? So some fellow NATO allies send some of their troops to the autonomous territory of a fellow NATO member.

Does any other country threaten to "go postal" if the US deploys extra troops to Guam or Costa Rica?

Maybe they should.

"... I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for ME. ..."

There you go Donald, sorted it for you.

Seeing as the US has started and been involved in more wars since WW2 any other country and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries in the world combined.

I sometimes wonder, if a complete outsider or if there are other species in other worlds that came to Earth just who would they consider to be the warmonger.

I have only come to question this since Trump came to power unfortunately, perhaps it's always been there and as unthinkable as it may be I have been too blinkered to see it.

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

Who will Australia and New Zealand side with ?

EU and Canada?

Most probably yes.

16 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

Seeing as the US has started and been involved in more wars since WW2 any other country and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries in the world combined.

I sometimes wonder, if a complete outsider or if there are other species in other worlds that came to Earth just who would they consider to be the warmonger.

I have only come to question this since Trump came to power unfortunately, perhaps it's always been there and I have been too blinkered to see it.

To quote Green Day "American Idiot[s]".

9 hours ago, KhunLA said:

One can only hope. USA out of NATO, and Europe would be lovely.

Paying each resident of Greenland to break away from Denmark would be a bargain. 500k to each resident, would only cost <30 billion USD. Musk could even spring for that, as pocket change for him.

For decent people, sovereignty and not being ruled by some two year old child is worth a lot more than money.

Perhaps MAGAs are incapable of understanding things like decency, character and integrity.

If the left wants a cool calm President in the future I'll give you a gentle hint.

8 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

If the left wants a cool calm President in the future I'll give you a gentle hint.

Do not storm his house in the middle of the night and raid his wifes panty drawers. No surprise the left now have to deal with Nuclear Trump. Som nom naa 😅🤣😂

I see you are incapable of understanding everything from US national security to law. No surprise, I suppose, for someone living in the fever swamps of MAGAstan.

The wedding planner facility was raided because Trump broke the law and put US national security, as well as the lives of clandestine foreign intelligence, assets at risk. He then lied about returning what he stole.

For anyone with an IQ above that of a turnip, it's easy to understand.

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

Who will Australia and New Zealand side with ?

EU and Canada?

That would be entirely up to them for historical and cultural reasons (as well as them being soldiers and countries I would have been proud and confident to have served alongside) I would welcome them joining the UK Canada and Europe.

American interests seem more concerned with China Japan and Korea at the moment.

Perhaps it would be in their best interest not to align with any just a Aus-NZ pact whilst staying on friendly terms with both.

5 hours ago, Bannoi said:

Seeing as the US has started and been involved in more wars since WW2 any other country and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries in the world combined.

I sometimes wonder, if a complete outsider or if there are other species in other worlds that came to Earth just who would they consider to be the warmonger.

I have only come to question this since Trump came to power unfortunately, perhaps it's always been there and as unthinkable as it may be I have been too blinkered to see it.

I have been thinking for a long time that people on earth are not an advanced species but rather that they are more likely towards the lower rung of civilizations throughout the universe. And an argument could also be made that we're moving backwards not forward, and that we're marching back towards a 2nd Cro Magnon era.

All anybody has to do is look toward the White House for proof of that.