Mint Explainer | How Trump’s Greenland gambit put Nato on the brink

After the speech, it appears Nato has survived, but barely. Mint examines the implications.

What is Nato?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) was created in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet expansion and the spread of communism. It had 12 founding members: the US, Canada, the UK, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, Nato expanded steadily, with Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024) among its latest members, prompted by Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

The key clause in the Washington Treaty that founded Nato is Article 5 that says “an armed attack against one or more…shall be considered an attack against them all." This clause was invoked after the 2001 September 11 attacks, leading to a multinational military presence in Afghanistan under the US-led global war on terrorism.

What is Trump’s gripe with Nato?

Trump has long shown disdain for multilateralism. His main complaint with Nato, however, is financial: the US shoulders most of the cost of European security, while other members contribute relatively little. During his first term, Trump demanded Nato members raise defence spending to 2% of GDP; in his second term, he is pushing for 5%.

In Davos, he complained that the US gains little from Nato beyond protecting Europe from Russia. In this context, the idea of Denmark selling Greenland to the US has, in Trump’s view, become a symbolic payback for years of American spending on Nato.

What was Trump's pitch at Davos?

At Davos, Trump clarified he would not annex Greenland by force and avoided referring to the 10% punitive levies he had threatened on countries defending the island. Yet his warning was unmistakable: “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember."

He later added that he was seeking talks.

Why Greenland matters for Nato

A US military move in Greenland would have shattered Article 5: one Nato member attacking another would effectively dissolve the alliance.

Europe, though economically powerful and home to US bases, relies on the US nuclear umbrella for security, despite the nuclear-armed UK and France. The US has also played a decisive role in countering Russia’s nuclear threat during the Ukraine war. Europe could theoretically impose economic penalties on the US, but with Trump’s unpredictability, there is no guarantee of Washington's cooperation in future Nato crises.

Why does it set a dangerous precedent?

Forcing Denmark to cede Greenland would have violated its sovereignty. It is also unclear whether Trump’s demands would have stopped there. More broadly, it raises difficult questions about global security: how can the US or Europe pressure Russia on Ukraine, or China on Taiwan, if a nuclear power can coerce a Nato ally without consequence?

The main beneficiaries of this US-made Nato crisis appear to be Russia and China.

Could Europe have prevented this?

Yes. Europe has had decades to reduce its reliance on the US for military security. The Balkans crisis of the 1990s highlighted this dependency, resolved largely through US intervention. The European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy, established in 1999-2000, and operations like France’s in Mali or the EU’s naval Operation Atalanta to counter piracy off the Horn of Africa, have been limited in scope.

The Ukraine war exposed the gaps in Europe’s security posture. Despite economic strength, technological capabilities, a robust military-industrial base, and nuclear powers within its ranks, Europe has not developed a fully independent military capacity. Demographic challenges could have been mitigated by technology, such as drones. Trump’s actions have delivered a rude reality check, one that could push Europe toward greater self-reliance, but building such capabilities will take time.

Elizabeth Roche is associate professor of practice at O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana.