Washington, DC [US], January 9: NATO has hundreds and hundreds of pages of detailed military plans on how to protect itself against attack, but the scenarios of deterrence and defense always envisioned an external adversary. There's no playbook on how to handle President Donald Trump's ramped-up threats to take over territory of an ally by any means necessary. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's strategy so far has been to remain silent, which won't work for long.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has sought to tamp down the US appetite by warning Monday that "if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War."
Talk not cheap for NATO credibility
But even short of - or perhaps ahead of - any military movements, the impact of the escalating rhetoric alone cannot be underestimated.
"It is a huge victory for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin that we're even having this discussion," noted Patrik Oksanen, a senior fellow at the Stockholm Free World Forum, adding that the current situation inside the alliance would have been the ultimate dream of Soviet leaders.
"We are taking it quite seriously here up in the high north, that is, the combination that these remarks came so quickly after Venezuela and also has been strengthened both by first President Trump but then also his adviser [Stephen] Miller," who has both questioned Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland and whether any European troops would stand up against the US.
A social media post from Miller's wife, Katie, on Saturday, showing a map of Greenland covered by the US flag with the word "SOON," has amplified the angst.
Ed Arnold of the Royal United Services Institute, himself a former official at NATO's military headquarters, agrees that the damage to NATO goes beyond jangled nerves.
"It's an alliance built on values and trust," Arnold told DW, so "even getting to this stage has weakened the alliance." The notion of having NATO consultations about this would also be bad "optics", he added, with "32 allies all sitting around a table and the principle challenge and threat being from around the table."
Reinforcing forces?
Some observers suggest one solution could be NATO's European allies sending troops to Greenland, to show Trump they are taking its defense seriously and that any unilateral deployment from the US would be unnecessary. Steven Everts, director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, said there is value in that but only for the right reasons.
"Europeans ought to be taking Arctic security seriously," he said, "and if there are gaps, then we should try to fill them."
But he cautioned that this should not be approached as a way to placate Trump because it's already been proven by the previous attempts to do this that it "doesn't work."
"This is not a drill, people. This is not something that you can just wait out and hope for it to get better," he said. "This will only change if we take forceful action to hold our ground, not in an aggressive way - we're not going to fight the American military over Greenland if it comes to that - but we have to be very, very clear about how we see the future of Greenland and the future the alliance and everything that comes with it."
Danes dig in
Anders Vistisen, a Danish member of the European Parliament, agrees with Everts, saying Europe should "stop playing diplomatic games, giving in, trying to persuade the US to be more reasonable or try to appease them by spending more on military in the Arctic region or giving them mining concession rights in Greenland or whatever else that's been talked about."
While Vistisen's political leanings as a member of the right-wing Danish People's Party may lead one to believe he'd make common cause with Trump on some issues, the lawmaker actually made headlines - and waves - a year ago when he used a profanity in telling Trump what he could do with his intent to buy Greenland. He told DW he has promised not to repeat the phrase publicly, but stands by the sentiment and his tactic to use frank language to convey to Washington the unacceptability of its position.
Source: Times of Oman
