Europe needs to think the unthinkable on Nato

Open the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business, and the world

Gerardus Mercator may have a lot to answer for. He is a cartographer who in the sixteenth century drew a map of the world as an aid to navigators. On the Mercator map, which zooms in on the polar regions and is still widely used today, Greenland is larger than the entire area of ​​South America and roughly the size of Africa. In fact, both continents are several times larger.

Greenland’s deceptively massive size may have helped whet Donald Trump’s lust for control of the island. One day, the American President said in his interviews: “I love maps. I always said: Look at the size of this island. It is huge, and it should be part of the United States.” Denmark, which has sovereignty over the island, is happy to give America all the military facilities it needs, as well as access to Greenland’s vital minerals. Therefore there is no strategic case for US annexation. It is the president’s ego that drives this policy.

Trump has spoken menacingly about taking Greenland the easy way or “the hard way” — an unambiguous reference to the use of force. In response to the US threats, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that annexing Greenland would mark the end of the NATO alliance. Nicholas Burns, a former US ambassador to NATO, agrees that a US invasion “would destroy NATO.”

Some European members of NATO may try to keep the alliance going, even if America invades Greenland, under the pretext that they still need American protection from Russia. But an alliance based on mutual defense cannot withstand the attack of another member. Any American security guarantee for Europe will be of no value after that. Even if some Europeans try to cling to the wreckage of NATO, it will eventually sink under the waves of the North Atlantic.

Clearly the US government’s first preference is to force the Danes to sell Greenland. But even that would represent an unprecedented act of aggression against an ally, one that NATO would struggle to survive.

Fortunately, despite Trump’s threats, we are still far from the worst-case scenario. Events in Iran and Venezuela could draw the White House’s attention away from Greenland. Top Republicans have come out strongly against annexation.

The Europeans are also talking about strengthening NATO’s presence in the Arctic. But since Trump has made it quite clear that he wants to own the island, that is unlikely to satisfy him.

The most useful way for Europe is to make clear – publicly and privately – what the end of NATO will mean for the United States. The continued presence of US military bases in Europe would immediately be called into question. Some in Trump world may welcome this, because they see defending Europe as a burden that the United States can do without. But bases like Ramstein’s in Germany are used to project American power, including in the Middle East and Iran. The rupture of US security ties with Europe also means that the EU will not feel the need to respond negatively to Trump’s tariffs. It is possible to impose counter-tariffs equivalent to the 15% tax imposed by the United States on Europe.

Arms sales to Europe, which are of great importance to American defense manufacturers, will also collapse as European countries become more wary of using American products in their critical infrastructure. Silicon Valley tech giants can expect tougher taxes and regulations. Consumer boycotts of American products, already common in Canada, could spread to Europe – America’s largest foreign market. Enhancing US access to the Russian market would be only a small compensation.

It is clear that the risks facing European countries in the event of a divorce from the United States will be very high. They will have to move quickly to establish a new security treaty to replace NATO. The countries that signed a joint letter supporting Denmark – Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain – could form the basis of this alliance, along with the Nordic countries. The EU and UK combined have the wealth and population to deter Russia. But it would cost a lot of money, and would require painful steps — such as creating compulsory military service.

America also has many tools that may make life uncomfortable in post-NATO Europe. The Trump administration will certainly try to divide the EU and create special partnerships with its individual members. Countries that might take the bait – such as Hungary – will face a choice between aligning with the United States or continuing as a member of the European Union. Decades of transatlantic cooperation have also created economic dependencies that the United States can exploit — weaponizing everything from software updates to access to credit cards.

Britain is particularly vulnerable because of the depth of its security ties with the United States. The British and American intelligence services are deeply intertwined. The British nuclear deterrent uses American software and missiles. BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defense company, sells more to the US than to the UK.

Therefore, many in the British establishment consider the end of NATO unimaginable. This would certainly be unprecedented and dangerous – not only for Britain, but also for Europe and the United States itself. But dangerous and unprecedented things have happened repeatedly in history. Unfortunately, when it comes to NATO, it is time to start thinking the unthinkable.

gideon.rachman@ft.com