If Trump takes over Greenland by force. Dr Shabir Choudhry, 13 January 2026, London

 If Trump takes over Greenland by force

Dr Shabir Choudhry, 13 January 2026, London

Implications for NATO

·       Existential crisis for NATO: An attack on Greenland (Danish territory) would mean a NATO member attacking another NATO member.

 

·       Article 5 paralysis: NATO has no mechanism to respond coherently when the aggressor is the United States itself.

 

·       Collapse of trust: Smaller NATO states would question the alliance’s credibility and US security guarantees.

 

·       European strategic autonomy accelerates: Germany, France, and others would push hard for an EU-led defence structure independent of Washington.

Bottom line: NATO survives formally but is politically hollowed out.

Implications for Europe

·       Severe transatlantic rupture: Denmark, the EU, and possibly Canada would treat the US as an unreliable and aggressive power.

 

·       Sanctions against the US: Likely symbolic at first, but financial retaliation (tariffs, legal cases, frozen cooperation) could follow.

 

·       Militarisation of the Arctic by Europe: Nordic states would expand Arctic defence cooperation against unpredictability and to safeguard their interests.

• Internal EU cohesion strengthens: Ironically, US aggression would unify Europe more than Russian pressure or the Ukraine war has.
• 
  

Implications for China

·       Propaganda windfall: Beijing would frame this as proof that the “rules-based international order” was always selective.

 

·       Taiwan precedent anxiety: China would carefully study US justifications to repurpose them later.

 

·       It could also encourage China to carry out a similar action to take over Taiwan.

 

·       Arctic access opportunity: China would deepen ties with Russia and Nordic states excluded from US control of Greenland.

 

·       Moral high ground (temporarily): China would appear restrained by comparison, despite its own ambitions.

Implications for Russia

·       Strategic opportunity: Moscow would welcome NATO disarray.

 

·       Some small countries may establish closer ties with Russia.

 

·       Arctic leverage increases: Russia would argue it is a more predictable Arctic power than the US.

 

·       Ukraine war implications: European focus shifts away from Ukraine, weakening Kyiv’s support. Moscow will surely welcome that.

• US-Russia tacit coordination? Unlikely openly, but parallel opportunism would occur.

Overall Assessment

A US seizure of Greenland would:

• End US moral leadership
• Fracture NATO
• Legitimise territorial revisionism globally

This would be more destabilising than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. END

--

Dr Shabir Choudhry

 Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: "Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to people."