The Trump administration’s renewed threats in late 2025 and early 2026 to acquire Greenland, or even use military force to “deter adversaries in the Arctic region,” have once again placed NATO unity under scrutiny. Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, hosts the Pituffik Space Base, a critical site for monitoring Russian naval activity in the North Atlantic. The island’s strategic importance, combined with potential Arctic resources and shipping routes, has elevated it from a remote outpost to a flashpoint for alliance cohesion.
Historical Lessons: When Allies Almost Went to War
NATO, founded in 1949, has long prided itself on collective defense under Article 5, which considers an attack on one member as an attack on all. Yet, the alliance has faced repeated internal crises that brought members perilously close to conflict. The Cod Wars (1958–1976) between the United Kingdom and Iceland saw naval rammings and trawler disputes over fishing rights, forcing the alliance to intervene diplomatically to maintain operational cohesion. Similarly, the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus after a Greek-backed coup nearly resulted in open conflict between Greece and Turkey, prompting Greece to withdraw from NATO’s military command for six years.
Resource disputes have also tested NATO’s limits. In 1995, the Turbot War between Canada and Spain escalated when Canadian forces fired warning shots at Spanish trawlers, risking direct engagement between allied navies. Each of these crises demonstrates that even minor nations can leverage strategic threats to extract concessions from larger allies, and that NATO’s internal cohesion often depends on diplomacy and mediation rather than force alone.
Political Fractures Over Military Action
Beyond disputes over territory or resources, NATO members have diverged over interventionist policies. The 1956 Suez Crisis exposed tensions when the UK and France launched military operations in Egypt without U.S. approval, causing a temporary rift. In the Vietnam War era, France opposed American intervention and left NATO’s military command in 1966. More recently, Greece opposed NATO airstrikes in Kosovo (1999), European allies resisted the Iraq invasion (2003), and Germany and Poland abstained from the Libya intervention (2011). These cases highlight that political and operational disagreements, while disruptive, typically involved out-of-area missions, not the territorial sovereignty of a member state, a distinction that makes Greenland especially sensitive.
The Greenland Conundrum
Unlike previous disputes, Greenland implicates the core territorial integrity of a NATO member. Any U.S. attempt to seize control would violate both international law and the 1951 Danish-American Defense Agreement, which explicitly safeguards Danish sovereignty over the territory. Analysts warn that if one NATO member threatens another’s territory, Article 5 could become inapplicable, raising the question: if Denmark is attacked, who defends it? The scenario is unprecedented and tests the alliance’s legal and moral foundations.
Strategic Imperatives for NATO
The Greenland crisis underscores the need for collective approaches. Denmark and its allies should invoke Article 4 consultations, ensuring that disputes are addressed within the North Atlantic Council. A multinational NATO presence in Greenland could balance U.S. security concerns with Danish sovereignty. Additionally, negotiated frameworks for resource development could reconcile competing Arctic interests while maintaining alliance unity. History suggests that mediation, diplomacy, and respect for treaty obligations have repeatedly prevented NATO from descending into intra-alliance conflict.
Conclusion
NATO has survived the Suez Crisis, the Cod Wars, Cyprus, and the Turbot War without dissolving. The Greenland situation, however, represents an existential test: a founding member’s territory under threat from its most powerful ally. The alliance’s credibility, the deterrent effect of Article 5, and the moral authority of collective defense all hang in the balance. For NATO to retain cohesion, it must reaffirm its commitment to sovereignty, diplomacy, and shared security, ensuring that the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation rather than a theater for internal confrontation.
How Greenland Brought NATO Members to the Brink: A Historical Account of Near-Clashes Among Allies
The Trump administration’s renewed threats in late 2025 and early 2026 to acquire Greenland, or even use military force to “deter adversaries in the Arctic region,” have once again placed NATO unity under scrutiny. Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, hosts the Pituffik Space Base, a critical site for monitoring Russian naval activity in the North Atlantic. The island’s strategic importance, combined with potential Arctic resources and shipping routes, has elevated it from a remote outpost to a flashpoint for alliance cohesion.
Historical Lessons: When Allies Almost Went to War
NATO, founded in 1949, has long prided itself on collective defense under Article 5, which considers an attack on one member as an attack on all. Yet, the alliance has faced repeated internal crises that brought members perilously close to conflict. The Cod Wars (1958–1976) between the United Kingdom and Iceland saw naval rammings and trawler disputes over fishing rights, forcing the alliance to intervene diplomatically to maintain operational cohesion. Similarly, the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus after a Greek-backed coup nearly resulted in open conflict between Greece and Turkey, prompting Greece to withdraw from NATO’s military command for six years.
Resource disputes have also tested NATO’s limits. In 1995, the Turbot War between Canada and Spain escalated when Canadian forces fired warning shots at Spanish trawlers, risking direct engagement between allied navies. Each of these crises demonstrates that even minor nations can leverage strategic threats to extract concessions from larger allies, and that NATO’s internal cohesion often depends on diplomacy and mediation rather than force alone.
Political Fractures Over Military Action
Beyond disputes over territory or resources, NATO members have diverged over interventionist policies. The 1956 Suez Crisis exposed tensions when the UK and France launched military operations in Egypt without U.S. approval, causing a temporary rift. In the Vietnam War era, France opposed American intervention and left NATO’s military command in 1966. More recently, Greece opposed NATO airstrikes in Kosovo (1999), European allies resisted the Iraq invasion (2003), and Germany and Poland abstained from the Libya intervention (2011). These cases highlight that political and operational disagreements, while disruptive, typically involved out-of-area missions, not the territorial sovereignty of a member state, a distinction that makes Greenland especially sensitive.
The Greenland Conundrum
Unlike previous disputes, Greenland implicates the core territorial integrity of a NATO member. Any U.S. attempt to seize control would violate both international law and the 1951 Danish-American Defense Agreement, which explicitly safeguards Danish sovereignty over the territory. Analysts warn that if one NATO member threatens another’s territory, Article 5 could become inapplicable, raising the question: if Denmark is attacked, who defends it? The scenario is unprecedented and tests the alliance’s legal and moral foundations.
Strategic Imperatives for NATO
The Greenland crisis underscores the need for collective approaches. Denmark and its allies should invoke Article 4 consultations, ensuring that disputes are addressed within the North Atlantic Council. A multinational NATO presence in Greenland could balance U.S. security concerns with Danish sovereignty. Additionally, negotiated frameworks for resource development could reconcile competing Arctic interests while maintaining alliance unity. History suggests that mediation, diplomacy, and respect for treaty obligations have repeatedly prevented NATO from descending into intra-alliance conflict.
Conclusion
NATO has survived the Suez Crisis, the Cod Wars, Cyprus, and the Turbot War without dissolving. The Greenland situation, however, represents an existential test: a founding member’s territory under threat from its most powerful ally. The alliance’s credibility, the deterrent effect of Article 5, and the moral authority of collective defense all hang in the balance. For NATO to retain cohesion, it must reaffirm its commitment to sovereignty, diplomacy, and shared security, ensuring that the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation rather than a theater for internal confrontation.
News Desk