America’s renewed drive to bring Greenland under its control has triggered what The Economist describes as the most dangerous internal crisis NATO has faced in decades. What began as an unconventional geopolitical idea has evolved into a confrontation that threatens the alliance’s core foundation - mutual trust between allies, DKNews.kz reports.
Linked to Donald Trump, the initiative has moved well beyond rhetorical pressure. Washington has shifted toward direct economic coercion, tying questions of sovereignty and security to trade penalties and political ultimatums.
Tariffs instead of diplomacy
According to The Economist, the United States has threatened to impose 10 percent tariffs on European countries that back Denmark over Greenland starting February 1, 2026, with the rate potentially rising to 25 percent by June.
For Europe, this marked a turning point. The measures were not seen as negotiation tactics but as economic blackmail against allies, sharply escalating tensions inside NATO. European leaders responded by stating that sovereignty cannot be bargained away, even under pressure from Washington.
Why Greenland matters
As The Economist notes, Greenland is far more than a symbolic Arctic territory. It plays a crucial role in:
- control of the Arctic region,
- access to strategic and rare-earth resources,
- military logistics and early-warning systems.
The deeper danger, however, lies in precedent. Any attempt to force territorial change on an ally undermines the very logic of NATO, which is built on collective defense and respect for borders.
If one member can use economic or political pressure to impose its will, the question inevitably follows: how reliable are NATO’s security guarantees for everyone else?
Europe’s strategic dilemma
Europe now faces a stark choice, The Economist argues.
One option is to preserve transatlantic ties by tacitly accepting Washington’s demands. The other is to resist politically and economically - a path that could lead to:
- the collapse of a US-EU trade agreement,
- pressure on American technology companies,
- higher defense spending across Europe,
- and the risk of a new trade war.
European lawmakers increasingly warn that giving in over Greenland would set a dangerous precedent, weakening European sovereignty in the long term.
US military bases: shield or leverage?
Another sensitive issue highlighted by The Economist is the future of American military bases in Europe.
Some countries view them as indispensable security guarantees, particularly against potential threats from Russia. Others argue that the possibility of limiting or closing these bases could be used as leverage against Washington.
The paradox is that the United States itself depends heavily on European infrastructure. Without bases and allies in Europe, Washington’s ability to operate in Africa, the Middle East, and the Arctic would be severely constrained.
The cost of a rupture for Europe
A sharp break with the US would also come at a high price for Europe. The Economist points to risks such as:
- reduced access to intelligence sharing,
- weakened nuclear deterrence,
- limited operational use of F-35 fighter jets, which rely on American systems for maintenance and data integration.
At present, Europe lacks a fully independent alternative to US military capabilities.
NATO may survive - but changed
The Economist offers a cautious but troubling conclusion. NATO is unlikely to collapse overnight, yet it may continue to exist without its most essential pillar - trust.
If the Greenland crisis is not resolved diplomatically, it could become a point of no return, leaving NATO formally intact but strategically hollow.
In that scenario, the defining question would no longer be whether NATO survives, but what kind of security order replaces it in a world where allies no longer trust one another.
