Trump’s Greenland episode raises doubts about NATO’s future

WASHINGTON— The crisis sparked by President Trump’s demand for ownership of Greenland appears to be over, at least for now. But the United States and its European allies still face a bigger long-term challenge: Can their faltering marriage be saved?

The 75-year-old NATO has weathered storms before, from disputes over trade to alienation over the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Jealous of its independence, France even withdrew its armed forces from NATO for 43 years.

But diplomats and foreign policy scholars warn that the current divide in the alliance could get worse as Trump’s threats against Greenland convince many Europeans that the United States has become an unreliable and perhaps even dangerous ally.

The roots of the crisis lie in the president’s frequently expressed disdain for alliances in general and NATO in particular.

Long before Trump came to the White House, presidents of both parties were complaining that many NATO countries were not doing their due diligence on military spending.

But previous presidents still viewed the alliance as an important asset for U.S. foreign policy and the cornerstone of the system that prevented war in Europe for most of the century.

Trump never seems to share that view. Even after he succeeded in persuading NATO members to increase defense spending, he continued to deride many of their allies as freeloaders.

Until last year, he refused to reaffirm the alliance’s founding principle: the United States’ commitment to help defend other NATO countries. And he reserved the right to withdraw from any agreement, military or commercial, when it suited his purpose.

In two weeks of tension over Greenland, he threatened to wrest the island from NATO member Denmark; this was an action that would violate the NATO agreement.

When Britain, Germany and other countries sent troops to Greenland, he threatened to hit them with new tariffs; That would violate the trade deal Trump struck just last year.

Both threats sparked outrage in Europe, where governments spent much of the past year making concessions to Trump on both military spending and tariffs. The lesson some leaders learned when Trump backed down was that backing down works better than being nice.

“We prefer respect to tyrants,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said, “It’s one thing to be a happy slave, it’s another thing to be a miserable slave.”

The long-term danger for the United States, scientists say, is that Europeans may choose to look elsewhere for military and economic partners.

“They don’t trust us,” said Richard N. Haass, a former State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

“A post-American world is rapidly emerging, with the United States largely leading the way in dismantling the international order that this country has built.” wrote last week.

Some European leaders, including Macron, have argued that they should break away from the United States, build up military forces that can defend against Russia and seek more reliable trading partners, potentially including India and China.

But leaving the US won’t be easy, quick or cheap. Europe and Canada still depend on the United States for most of their defense needs and as a major market for exports.

Nearly all NATO countries have pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, but they are not scheduled to reach that goal until 2035.

Meanwhile, they face the danger of an expansionist Russia on their eastern borders.

For a group of 30 countries, it is not surprising that Europe’s NATO members do not agree on this issue. Macron argued for more autonomy, but others called for caution.

In his speech in Davos, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, “Despite all the disappointment and anger in recent months, let’s not be hasty in throwing the transatlantic partnership aside.”

“I actually think we are in the process of creating a stronger NATO,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “As long as we keep doing this, slowly and surely we will be fine.”

In fact, they argue that the best strategy is to mix things up; NATO and Europe have done this in many previous crises.

The strongest argument for this trend may be the uncertainty and disorder that would follow the rapid erosion (or worse, dissolution) of an alliance that had helped keep its members safe for a century.

Historian Robert Kagan recently warned that the costs of this outcome would be borne by Americans as well as Europeans.

If the United States continues to weaken its commitments to NATO and other alliances, he wrote He wrote in the Atlantic: “The United States will have no reliable friends or allies and will have to rely entirely on its own strength to survive and thrive. This will require more military spending, not less. … If Americans think it is too expensive to defend the liberal world order, wait until they start paying the price for what comes next.”