Many commentators are pointing out that a military confrontation with Denmark would end NATO. Most of us recoil from the idea of ending NATO.
What we may be overlooking is that the answer to the question, “To whom is NATO more important?” may be a negotiating tactic. Does NATO protect the U.S. or Europe? How will the hollowing out of American bases affect the European economy? We may be recoiling from the uncertainty that comes with a shift in the alliance rather than from the loss of protection the NATO shield offers.
Most of the critics of the Trump administration’s approach toward dealing with Denmark are not seeing the chessboard; rather they are dealing with their own emotions. Looking ahead, the administration’s private argument with Europe will feature my opening statement: A military confrontation with Denmark would end NATO, followed by the question, “Is that what you want?” It will then go on to point out that Greenland is part of the Americas and a colony of Denmark, in violation of the Monroe Doctrine, which the U.S. has enforced for more than 200 years. the administration is counting on these arguments swaying the United Kingdom, France and some of the other NATO members.
Furthermore, the administration may leverage economic arguments that resonate with fiscally conservative NATO members. The United States has long shouldered a disproportionate financial burden within NATO, contributing about 16% of the alliance’s common funding while maintaining the largest military presence.
If European nations are forced to dramatically increase their defense spending to compensate for reduced American involvement, it could strain their social welfare systems and economic stability. The administration understands that European leaders face domestic political pressures and may calculate that negotiating over Greenland is preferable to explaining to their constituents why defense budgets must double or triple. This economic leverage, combined with the Monroe Doctrine argument, creates a two-pronged negotiating strategy that many commentators are failing to recognize.
This is not to say that the administration’s approach is right; rather that those who are reacting emotionally, will find themselves backpedaling and on their back foot when the administration moves its next chess piece.
The administration’s approach to Venezuela, Mexico and Columbia is the other side of the same coin. “Do you want the U.S. to continue to enforce the Monroe Doctrine? If you do, corral your drug cartels and clean up corruption in your countries.”
Beyond NATO considerations, there’s a resource dimension that remains underexplored in most coverage. Greenland contains significant deposits of rare earth minerals essential for modern technology and defense systems. China currently dominates rare earth production, creating a strategic vulnerability for Western nations. Securing Greenland would provide the United States with resource independence while simultaneously denying China the opportunity to expand its influence in the Arctic. This resource competition adds another layer to the administration’s negotiation strategy — one that appeals to national security hawks who might otherwise oppose disrupting traditional alliances.
The question becomes whether European leaders recognize these intersecting pressures before the administration makes its next move.