Greenland and NATO: Is It All On the Table?

 With the Danes being super-concerned about American threats about Greenland (imagine if someone was making similar claims about Hawaii or Alaska), folks are talking about Article 5 of the NATO alliance.  So much is misunderstood about this key clause--an attack upon one equals an attack upon all. 

Ooops, that is incomplete: a) it requires consensus, like all NATO decisions of any consequences; b) each country can respond as each deems necessary.

In an intra-alliance spat, such as Greece vs. Turkey, which has happened, NATO can't respond because it can't come to a consensus.  So, the Danes could try to bring the issue to the North Atlantic Council, NATO's decision-making body, but the US would block consensus.  Part b is less relevant in this case (very relevant in a certain book, with a sale on the ebook!).  

Of course, the US hasn't attacked .... yet, so A5 is not relevant at all.  

BUT there is something else here: that any failed attempt to invoke Article 5 could break the alliance.  Any member that has been attacked that fails to get help will have good reason to withdraw--what's the point if help will not come when it is requested?  So, the threat to try to get the alliance to invoke A5 is an attempt to say: if you don't support us, the alliance is dead.

This is why countries, when attacked, haven't tried to invoke Article 5--cyber attack on Estonia, Syria hitting Turkey, Russia breaking sea cables, etc--because a failed effort may be fatal to the alliance.

In semi-normal times, one could look at the Danish hints at A5 discussions* as a way to increase the stakes to get more support.  The problem is: these times aren't normal.  Trump might just leap at an opportunity to break the alliance.  His hostility to it is well known, and his ignorance of how most of it works is also well known.  But if his advisers tell him that initiating a Greenland crisis might be a pathway to breaking NATO, Trump might just grab that chance.  

And then Putin's investment in Trump will pay off in the biggest way possible.

This is all scary and awful, but it is not out of the realm of the possible at this point.  The stakes involved in Greenland, where the US is already getting all the access it needs, are huge.  The very foundations of security in Europe and beyond are at stake.  A much bigger deal, ultimately, then Venezuela, which is already pretty important. 

 

*  Or the Danish PM is referring to NATO to make the obvious point--that there is no need for the US to take over Greenland since it is already under the US security umbrella via Denmark's membership in NATO.  Too bad Trump is a bad faith actor and this bit of reality is irrelevant.