EUROPE NEEDS TO THINK THE UNTHINKABLE ON NATO / THE FINANCIAL TIMES OP EDITORIAL

Europe needs to think the unthinkable on Nato

Conflict over Greenland could destroy the transatlantic alliance, requiring a new European security treaty to replace it

Gideon Rachman

© James Ferguson

Gerardus Mercator may have a lot to answer for. 

He was the cartographer who, in the 16th century, drew up a world map as an aid for navigators. 

On the Mercator map, which magnifies the polar regions and is still widely used today, Greenland looks bigger than the whole of South America and roughly the size of Africa. 

In reality, both continents are many times larger.

The deceptively enormous size of Greenland may have helped spark Donald Trump’s lust to take over the island. 

The US president once told interviewers: “I love maps. 

And I always said, ‘Look at the size of this, it’s massive, and that should be part of the United States.’” 

Denmark, which has sovereignty over the island, would happily give America all the military facilities it needs, as well as access to Greenland’s critical minerals. 

So there is no strategic case for US annexation. 

The president’s ego is driving this policy.

Trump has talked threateningly of acquiring Denmark the easy way or “the more difficult way” — an unmistakable reference to using force. 

In response to American threats, Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, has said that the annexation of Greenland would represent 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 would probably try to keep the alliance going, even if America did invade Greenland, reasoning that they still need US protection from Russia. 

But an alliance based on mutual defence could not survive one member attacking another. 

No US security guarantee to Europe would be worth anything after that. 

Even if some Europeans tried to cling to the wreckage of Nato, it would ultimately sink beneath the north Atlantic waves.

The US government’s first preference is clearly to coerce the Danes into selling Greenland. 

But even that would represent an unprecedented act of aggression against an ally — which Nato would struggle to survive.

Fortunately, despite Trump’s threats, we are still some way from the worst-case scenarios. 

Events in Iran and Venezuela could draw the White House’s attention away from Greenland. 

Leading Republicans have come out strongly against annexation.

The Europeans are also talking about beefing up Nato’s presence in the Arctic. 

But, since Trump has made it very clear that he wants to own the island, that is unlikely to appease him.

A more fruitful avenue for Europe would be to spell out — in public and private — what the end of Nato would mean for the US. 

The continued existence of American military bases in Europe would immediately come into question. 

Some in Trump-world might welcome that, since they see the defence of Europe as a burden the US could do without. 

But bases like Ramstein in Germany are used for American power projection — including in the Middle East and Iran. 

A rupture in US security ties with Europe would also mean that the EU would no longer feel the need to respond passively to Trump’s tariffs. 

Counter-tariffs that matched America’s 15 per cent levy on Europe could be imposed.

The arms sales to Europe that are so important to US defence manufacturers would also collapse as European countries become warier of using American products in their critical infrastructure. 

Silicon Valley’s tech giants could expect to be taxed and regulated much more heavily. 

Consumer boycotts of US products, already common in Canada, could catch on in Europe — America’s largest overseas market. 

Enhanced US access to the Russian market would be scant compensation.

The risks for European countries of a divorce from the US would clearly be very high. 

They would need to move fast to establish a new security pact to replace Nato. 

The countries that signed a joint letter supporting Denmark — Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain — could form the basis of that alliance, along with the Nordics. 

The EU and the UK combined have the wealth and population numbers to deter Russia. 

But it would cost a lot of money and might require painful steps — like the establishment of compulsory military service.

America also has plenty of tools to make life uncomfortable for a post-Nato Europe. 

The Trump administration would certainly try to split the EU and to cultivate special partnerships with individual members. 

Those countries that might take the bait — such as Hungary — would be faced with a choice between siding with the US or continued EU membership. 

Decades of transatlantic co-operation have also created economic dependencies that the US could exploit — weaponising everything from software updates to credit card access.

Britain is particularly vulnerable because of the depth of its security ties with the US. 

The British and American intelligence services are deeply intertwined. 

The British nuclear deterrent uses American software and missiles. 

BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence company, sells more to the US than to the UK.

Many in the British establishment therefore regard the end of Nato as simply unthinkable. 

It would certainly be unprecedented and dangerous — not just for Britain, but also for Europe and the US itself. 

But unprecedented and dangerous things have happened frequently in history. 

Sadly, when it comes to Nato, it is time to start thinking about the unthinkable.