The comments come as President Trump sharpens his rhetoric around acquiring Greenland, reviving and expanding a proposal he first floated in 2019 amid rising tensions with Russia and China in the Arctic.
Prominent Europeans Issue Urgent Warnings
Günther Fehlinger, chairman of the Austrian Committee for NATO Enlargement, said in a televised interview that a U.S. annexation of Greenland could end American basing rights across Europe.
“If you take Greenland, you have to leave,” Fehlinger predicted.
A clip of the interview posted to X referenced Europe’s post-World War II leverage and argued that European states will go their separate ways if Washington abandons alliance norms.
Fehlinger does not have the authority to enforce such a move. Still, his remarks reflect a broader shift in tone among European leaders.
Denmark: Use of Force Would End NATO as We Know It
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned Tuesday that any use of force to seize Greenland would render the post-war NATO alliance “defunct” and halt all existing security cooperation with the United States.
Greenland is a self-governing autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Copenhagen has consistently opposed transferring sovereignty.
Several European governments have aligned with Denmark’s position. Leaders from the ideologically diverse governments of Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom issued joint statements affirming Denmark’s territorial integrity and rejecting U.S. military options.
They emphasized that the future of the vast Arctic island is a matter for Denmark and Greenland alone to decide.
The leaders of Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Luxembourg, and Slovenia have also voiced their support for the original statement, arguing that Western nations are strongest when they act together rather than allowing themselves to be divided.
Mixed Signals From Washington
Concerns have also surfaced on Capitol Hill. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), normally a staunch ally of the president, said Tuesday night that U.S. military action in Greenland “would not be appropriate” and claimed he had not seen any White House statements supporting such a move.
That position contrasts with earlier comments from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who reiterated that “utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal” and described Greenland as a “national security priority.”
Former senior U.S. commanders have also weighed in. Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, warned that annexation would almost certainly lead to “a reduction in access to bases across Europe,” severely undermining U.S. security interests.
What’s at Stake for the U.S.
The United States currently operates the Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, in Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark. The installation plays a critical role in missile warning and space surveillance for both the U.S. and NATO.
Under that agreement, the U.S. already has the right to build and operate military facilities in Greenland, subject to notifying Danish and Greenlandic authorities. Denmark has historically accommodated the American presence, in part because it lacks the capacity to defend the vast island on its own and relies on NATO security guarantees.
Denmark even offered last year to allow an expanded U.S. military presence in Greenland. The White House showed little interest, instead focusing on acquiring the territory outright.
Strategic Tradeoffs
Greenland offers clear strategic advantages:
- Forward-positioned missile defense and early warning sites
- Access to Arctic shipping lanes as ice recedes
- Significant rare earth mineral reserves, estimated at roughly 25% of global supply
But experts argue that those gains pale in comparison to what could be lost.
NATO provides the United States with collective defense under Article 5, shared intelligence, interoperable forces, and economic stability among allied states. NATO allies now account for more than $1.2 trillion in combined defense spending.
From an international perspective, eroding the alliance over Greenland would impose long-term costs that far outweigh any gains from territory or resources.