Greenland, NATO and the End of Hegemonic Restraint- A Response. Dr Shabir Choudhry, 16 January 2026, London.

 Greenland, NATO and the End of Hegemonic Restraint- A Response

Dr Shabir Choudhry, 16 January 2026, London.

Recent commentary on NATO’s future, particularly the argument that the Alliance may collapse not through American withdrawal but through American coercion, has struck a nerve across Europe and beyond. An article by Uriel Araujo, published on InfoBrics, has forcefully articulated this anxiety by focusing on President Donald Trump’s renewed fixation on Greenland. This response does not dispute the seriousness of that warning. Rather, it seeks to situate it within a wider historical and geopolitical context and to extend its implications far beyond the Euro-Atlantic space.

The Greenland debate is not merely about the Arctic, nor is it simply about Trump’s personality. It is about the erosion of hegemonic restraint—the unwritten but vital principle that the leading power in an alliance must voluntarily limit its own behaviour if collective security is to remain credible. Once that restraint disappears, alliances do not fail because they are weak, but because they are rendered meaningless.

NATO’s Crisis from Within

Araujo is right to argue that NATO’s greatest danger today does not come from Moscow, but from within the Alliance itself. NATO was conceived as a system of collective defence against external threats. Article 5 presumes clarity: an aggressor exists outside the alliance, and members unite against it. This logic collapses the moment the leading power openly threatens the territory of an ally.

If the United States were to coerce, intimidate, or even contemplate the acquisition of Greenland against Denmark’s will, NATO would face an unprecedented dilemma. Whom does the Alliance defend when the threat emanates from its own hegemon? In such circumstances, Article 5 becomes conceptually absurd. The Alliance may continue to exist on paper, but its moral and strategic foundations would already have disintegrated.

This is why European alarm should not be dismissed as hysteria. Emergency consultations, discussions of Arctic contingencies, and debates about strategic autonomy are rational responses to a scenario that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. NATO’s cohesion, it turns out, has always depended less on shared values than on American self-restraint.

Trump and the Myth of Isolationism

The Greenland episode also exposes the persistent misunderstanding of Trump as an isolationist. As Araujo correctly notes, Trump’s record points in the opposite direction. During his first term, the United States expanded aerial warfare, relaxed constraints on drone strikes, and lowered the threshold for the use of force outside declared war zones. Rather than retreating, Washington recalibrated its interventionism.

“America First” was never a doctrine of withdrawal. It was a doctrine of unilateralism—one that rejected constraints imposed by allies, institutions, or norms. In this sense, Trump represents not a break from American power, but a more naked expression of it. His willingness to speak openly about annexations, protectorates, and direct control strips away the liberal language that once masked imperial behaviour.

The Arctic, with its resources, shipping routes, and strategic geography, has become a testing ground for this unrestrained posture. Greenland is not an aberration; it is a symptom.

From Alliance Leadership to Imperial Logic

What makes the Greenland question so destabilising is that it signals a shift from alliance leadership to imperial logic. Alliances presuppose consent, mutual reassurance, and predictability. Empires rely on hierarchy, coercion, and obedience. These two logics cannot coexist indefinitely.

If allies are treated as subordinates and their sovereignty is conditional, the distinction between friend and foe dissolves. Security guarantees lose credibility, not because they are withdrawn, but because they become arbitrary. This is precisely the condition under which alliances decay—not through dramatic exits, but through internal corrosion.

Araujo is also right to situate this crisis within NATO’s pre-existing contradictions. The Alliance has long accommodated incompatible strategic priorities, selective interpretations of shared values, and unresolved internal disputes. The so-called “Trump factor” does not create these problems; it accelerates them and brings them into the open.

Beyond Europe: The Global Implications

Where this response diverges most strongly from the original article is in its geographical scope. The consequences of NATO’s internal crisis are not confined to Europe or the Arctic. They reverberate across the Global South, where international norms are already fragile and selectively applied.

When the leading power of the Western alliance openly contemplates violating the sovereignty of its own allies, it sends a powerful message: rules apply only when convenient. For regions such as South Asia, this has immediate implications. Territorial disputes harden, bilateralism is normalised, and appeals to international law lose force.

In Kashmir, for example, the erosion of normative restraint strengthens the hand of those who argue that power, not legality or self-determination, determines outcomes. If alliances themselves become instruments of coercion, there is little reason for weaker peoples to expect protection from international principles. What happens in Greenland, therefore, matters profoundly in places far removed from the Arctic Circle.

Multipolar Disorder, Not Multipolar Order

The deeper issue exposed by the Greenland debate is the illusion of an emerging “multipolar order.” What we are witnessing instead is multipolar disorder: a system in which power is increasingly fragmented, norms are eroding, and institutions persist without the moral authority that once sustained them.

In such a world, hegemonic restraint is not replaced by shared governance, but by competitive assertiveness. The result is not balance, but instability. Alliances become brittle, international law becomes rhetorical, and weaker actors are left exposed.

NATO’s predicament is thus emblematic of a broader global condition. Its potential unravelling from within reflects a crisis of leadership and legitimacy at the heart of the international system.

Conclusion: Greenland as a Mirror

Uriel Araujo’s article is valuable precisely because it forces a confrontation with an uncomfortable possibility: that the greatest threat to NATO may come not from its adversaries, but from the unchecked behaviour of its dominant member. This response agrees with that diagnosis, but extends it.

Greenland is not simply an Arctic dispute. It is a mirror reflecting the end of hegemonic restraint and the hollowing out of alliance logic. Whether or not the most extreme scenarios materialise, the damage is already visible in the erosion of trust, the normalisation of coercion, and the weakening of norms that once claimed universality.

The question, therefore, is not merely whether Trump will “kill NATO.” It is whether any alliance—or any international order—can survive when power is exercised without restraint and sovereignty becomes negotiable. The answer to that question will shape not only Europe’s future, but also the fate of contested regions and vulnerable peoples worldwide. End