A Trump attack on Greenland "it would paralyze NATO"

The will of the US president, Donald Trump, to take control of Greenland “it is a matter not to be taken lightly”, there are “several elements that could push him to act quickly” and not necessarily with a military operation. Second Stefano Stefanini, former Italian ambassador to NATO, the use of force is an “extreme” scenario, but one which risks triggering a “internal crisis” within the Alliance, capable of determining its end.

Starting from the observation that “it is a perspective so far beyond the schemes we know” that making predictions is a bit “climbing on mirrors”, in an interview with AGI, Stefanini tries to outline hypotheses on the times and ways in which the US president could realize his aims and on the reaction of NATO, of which Greenland – controlled by Denmark – is a member.

The US president risked losing complete control of Congress

“Trump has several reasons to try to advance his agenda of American supremacy in the Western Hemisphere over the next 8-10 months,” explains the ambassador: “First of all, right now, he has complete control of Congress which risks losing in the midterm elections in November; second element, from his point of view, challenge the world and go to ballot boxes with an international emergency situation is more advantageous, it makes us forget about inflation, the possible negative effects of tariffs and other internal issues; finally, we have seen that as soon as Trump gets a result he goes further, in a continuous escalation of initiatives which in internal politics is called ‘flooding’, which serves to avoid controversy over what has just been done by doing something even bigger”.

If we put all these elements and his latest statements together, “the Greenland issue can come to a head quite quickly”warns Stefanini, according to whom, however, Washington could put in place, first of all, threats and economic pressure on Copenhagen to lead it to call a new referendum on autonomy in which the US administration could implement a campaign to bring the local inhabitants to its side. “This is Denmark’s most feared option,” according to the ambassador.

Extreme choice

The use of force is the most extreme choice, even if Trump has never ruled it out, and it would open up unprecedented scenarios. “The prospect of Greenland being contested by another NATO country, in particular by the United States, was never taken into consideration in the Alliance until Trump started talking about it. There is, therefore, no ready scenario for a possible reaction” to a military intervention, explains Stefanini.

“In the event of an intervention also of smaller size than what we saw in Caracas”warns the ambassador, “it is unthinkable to imagine the deployment of NATO forces against the United States on a territory like that of Greenland”. NATO “would remain completely paralyzed”, is the ambassador’s prediction, “also because the Washington Treaty does not foresee a war between member countries but only external aggression”.

So far, Stefanini concludes, “the Atlantic Alliance has carried out a calming action in the event of tensions between member states, as between Greece and Türkiye, but this action was also possible thanks to the role played by the United States. There is no country within NATO that can replace the US in making peace between Washington and Copenhagen. It would trigger an internal crisis within the Alliance which could spell its end.”