Would NATO oppose a US invasion of Greenland?

Europe has spent much of 2025 beefing up its defenses against Russia, but a week into the new year, it is being forced to rethink its security concerns in light of President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland.

Trump has stepped up calls for Washington to take control of Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory. The White House said this week that Trump is considering various options to make that happen. including military action.

Greenland, the largest island in the world, is rich untapped mineral resources. Although geographically located on the North American continent, politically it is part of Europe.

Taking possession of the island would be no mean feat. Apart from political obstacles, both house and abroadan attempt to seize territory by force pits the US against its NATO allies.

Trump aide Stephen Miller in an interview with CNN earlier this week offered no European country is willing to fight to protect Greenland. While not ruling out the possibility of US military action in Greenland, he argued, noting the island’s small population, that “there is no need to think or talk about it in the context of a military operation (because) no one is going to war with the United States over the future of Greenland.”

For their part, Denmark and Greenland are taking talk of US military action seriously. Danish Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Troels Lund Poulsen made the announcement Tuesday evening said Denmark will spend 88 billion Danish kroner ($13.8 billion) to rearm Greenland because of “the critical security situation we face”.

Despite Denmark’s willingness to defend Greenland, experts told CNBC they don’t believe European forces would ever fire on American troops.

Edward Arnold, a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a British defense think tank, told CNBC on Tuesday that the White House has the military power to move into Greenland and could do so “really quickly” if it wanted to.

But there was no need to launch an operation like the one seen in Washington Venezuela on weekends, Arnold said, “it would be totally against it.”

“What European military commander would open fire on an American military vehicle entering Greenland?” he said. “This could start an intra-NATO war. And the US knows it.”

The United States has the largest military force of any NATO member country. In 2024, NATO estimated there would be 1.3 million U.S. military personnel, compared to 2.1 million for the rest of the alliance’s collective workforce. The next largest military headquarters belonged to Turkey, which employs approximately 481,000 people in its forces.

Arnold said he expected the U.S. to gradually increase the number of troops stationed in Greenland without ordering a full-scale military operation or invasion.

“They just don’t shoot at them,” he said of NATO forces. “So you have this weird position where the US just puts these troops into Greenland and the Europeans can’t do much about it but protest politically.”

Georgios Samaras, an assistant professor of public policy at King’s College London, agreed that Greenland and the broader NATO alliance would have limited ability to stop U.S. efforts to gain more control over the island.

“I don’t see what NATO can do to stop the U.S. – from the beginning, because we are talking about a superpower with many military bases on the continent, which theoretically could be used by a NATO member to invade from its own ranks,” he said during a call to CNBC.

Jamie Shea, a research fellow at Chatham House’s international security program and a former member of NATO’s international staff, believes that NATO should not only deal with antagonism against one of its own members, but also consider the broader security implications of breaking away from the US.

“I wouldn’t see a military response (from NATO) because the US can react quickly with the limited forces that the Europeans can send, and European governments are unlikely to consider that,” he told CNBC. “They need all their strength to defend Europe and contribute to the European pacification of Ukraine.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an American occupation of Greenland would mean the demise of NATO. 23 of NATO’s 32 members, including Denmark, are members of the European Union, which is working hard to ensure that the Trump administration continues to operate. Support Ukraine.

“They would avoid a direct conflict with the US, which would end NATO and US support for Ukraine,” Shi said.

Samaras of the Royal College agreed that any escalation towards Greenland would undermine NATO.

“If a NATO member threatens another member of the alliance, it does not just cause a conflict. It makes the alliance’s promise of mutual defense conditional and political,” he said. “This means the destruction of NATO. I don’t think NATO can continue.”

Shi told CNBC that while a European military confrontation is unlikely, there are ways for NATO to pressure Washington through the European Union.

“If the EU adopts sanctions, such as tariffs or restricting access to American companies and investments, Europe can use leverage on the US, in the economic sphere,” Shi said.

“European governments may reject US use of European military bases or facilities such as early warning radars. But these will obviously be difficult decisions for European governments, especially as they work hard to engage Washington in Ukraine’s peace plan and security guarantees.”

Despite his ambitions to take over Greenland, which is driving a wedge between the United States and its NATO allies, Trump said on Wednesday that America stands by the alliance despite his frustrations with the organization.

“Remember, for all the big fans of NATO, they’re 2 percent of GDP and most haven’t paid their bills EVER,” he told Truth Social magazine. postwith reference to defense spending by member states goals. Trump then said the alliance could not deal with modern security threats without the US.

“RUSSIA AND CHINA, NOT THE US, HAVE ZERO FEAR OF NATO AND IF WE REALLY NEED THEM, WE DOUBT THAT NATO WOULD BE FOR US,” he said. “We will always be together for NATO, even if they are not for us.”