Greenland as a Turning Point

When NATO Cannot Defend Itself Against the United States

by Michael Hollister
Exclusive published at Michael Hollister on January 18, 2026

2.568 words * 14 minutes readingtime

I. The Precedent – Venezuela Was Just the Beginning

On January 3, 2026, U.S. forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. A few days later, they seized several Russian oil tankers on the high seas. And on January 15, 2026, the Daily Mail reported that Donald Trump had instructed the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to develop an invasion plan for Greenland.

What initially seemed like a bizarre sequence of unconnected events reveals, upon closer examination, a strategic pattern: The United States is systematically testing how far it can go – without a UN mandate, without regard for international law, without consequences.

Venezuela was the test run. A sovereign state whose president was abducted, whose resources were seized, whose sovereignty was violated. The international community protested – but did nothing. Russia and China condemned – but did not intervene. The UN debated – but remained incapable of action.

Greenland is the next escalation level. Because while Venezuela stood outside Western alliances, Greenland is part of Denmark – and Denmark is a NATO member. A U.S. attack on Greenland would thus be not only a violation of international law, but an attack on NATO itself. The question is no longer: “Can NATO defend its members?” But rather: “Can NATO defend its members against the United States?”

The answer could mean the end of the transatlantic alliance – or the beginning of a new, multipolar world order in which BRICS, SCO, and regional alliances assume the role that NATO can no longer fulfill.

II. Greenland – Why This Island Decides the World Order

Greenland is the world’s largest island – 2.2 million square kilometers, three times the size of Texas, but with only 56,000 inhabitants. At first glance: an Arctic outpost, geopolitically peripheral. At second glance: The most strategically important point of the future world order.

A. Resources: The New Saudi Arabia of Rare Earths

Greenland possesses estimated reserves of:

• 38.5 million tons of rare earths (25% of global reserves) – essential for smartphones, electric cars, military electronics
• Uranium, thorium, graphite – critical for nuclear technology and battery production
• Estimated 31 billion barrels of oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (U.S. Geological Survey) – largely undeveloped to date
• Zinc, lead, gold, diamonds, rubies – commercial deposits already mapped

China currently controls 70% of global rare earth production. Greenland could break this monopoly – or, if China gains access first, cement it. For the United States, this is a question of national security: Whoever controls rare earths controls 21st-century technology.

B. Military: The Outpost for ICBM Early Warning

The Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) is located 1,200 km south of the North Pole and has been one of the most important U.S. military installations worldwide since 1951. It houses:

• Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) – detects Russian/Chinese ICBM launches over the North Pole within seconds
• Space Surveillance Network – monitors satellites and space debris
• Air Force base for F-35 fighters and strategic bombers

Without Pituffik, the United States would be practically blind in the event of a nuclear first strike. The base is part of nuclear deterrence architecture – non-negotiable from the U.S. perspective. But legally it belongs to Denmark, which could theoretically block access.

C. Sea Routes: The New Silk Road – Through Ice

Climate change is opening two routes that have been sought for centuries:

Northwest Passage (Canada/Greenland): Connects Atlantic and Pacific, shortens Europe-Asia shipping by 7,000 km (40% faster than Panama Canal)

Northeast Passage (Russia/Arctic): Connects Europe with Asia, shortens route by 6,500 km (35% faster than Suez Canal)

By 2040, both routes could be ice-free in summer. China already declared its “Polar Silk Road” as part of the Belt-and-Road Initiative in 2018. Russia is systematically building icebreaker fleets (currently 40 icebreakers, U.S. has 2). Whoever controls Greenland controls access to the Northwest Passage – and thus one of the most important trade routes of the 21st century.

Interim conclusion: Greenland is not a peripheral ice lump, but the hub of future resource wars, trade routes, and military deterrence. Whoever controls Greenland defines the rules of the coming world order.

III. International Law Assessment – Threat Is Breach

Donald Trump’s public declaration to secure Greenland “if necessary by military means” is not diplomatic saber-rattling. It is a formal breach of international law.

A. The Prohibition on the Use of Force – Article 2(4) UN Charter

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Not only the use of force is prohibited – the threat itself constitutes a legal violation. Trump’s instruction to JSOC to develop invasion plans is documented, public, repeated. Thus the U.S. government is formally in breach of existing international law.

B. Greenland Belongs to Denmark – And Denmark to NATO

Greenland is not no-man’s-land. It is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Politically, Greenland has its own government (Naalakkersuisut), but legally Copenhagen remains responsible for foreign and defense policy.

An attack on Greenland is an attack on Danish territory. And Denmark has been a founding member of NATO since 1949.

C. No Justification Through Self-Defense

Article 51 of the UN Charter permits military force exclusively for self-defense against an armed attack. Denmark has not attacked the United States. Greenland poses no military threat. Even if China or Russia were to exert influence on Greenland, that would not justify a preemptive invasion.

Result: Appeal to Article 51 is not sustainable under international law.

Interim conclusion: A U.S. attack on Greenland would be a clear, cumulative breach of international law – Art. 2(4) UN Charter, Danish sovereignty, NATO treaty. There is no legal gray area.

IV. The NATO Trap – When the Aggressor Is a Member

Article 5 of the NATO treaty is the heart of the alliance:

“An armed attack on one member shall be considered an attack on all.”

This formula works perfectly – as long as the attacker stands outside NATO. But what happens when the attacker is itself a member?

A. The Legal Vacuum

The NATO treaty knows no mechanism for internal aggressors. Article 5 only applies to an “armed attack against one or more parties” – it says nothing about what happens when this attack originates from a party itself.

The dilemma:

• The alliance case would have to be unanimously determined in the North Atlantic Council
• The United States would have veto power there
• The aggressor could thus declare itself that no attack has occurred

In other words: The protective mechanism collapses precisely at the moment when it would be needed.

B. Denmark’s Impossible Choice

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has already made clear: “A U.S. attack on Greenland would destroy NATO from within.” But what could Denmark actually do?

Option 1: Capitulation. Denmark accepts the U.S. action as a “security measure” and refrains from resistance. Consequence: Denmark loses credibility, Europe loses trust in NATO.

Option 2: Invoke alliance case. Denmark demands NATO assistance. But the U.S. blocks the vote in the North Atlantic Council. Consequence: Denmark stands alone, NATO is incapable of action.

Option 3: Leave NATO. Denmark declares withdrawal from an alliance that cannot protect it. Consequence: First bloc fragmentation since NATO’s founding, domino effect possible.

All three options are politically destructive.

C. Bloc Split: Old Europe vs. New Europe

A U.S. attack on Greenland would split Europe into two camps:

Old Europe (France, Germany, Spain, Belgium): Attempts to save international law. Demands UN mediation, threatens sanctions, seeks diplomatic solution. Emmanuel Macron would likely demand: “European strategic autonomy – now!”

New Europe (Baltics, Poland, parts of Eastern Europe): Faces a loyalty dilemma. Fear of Russia on one side, dependence on the U.S. on the other. Many would remain silent – out of fear of becoming a target themselves.

The result: No longer an alliance, but a hierarchical security structure in which loyalty is more important than law and geography more important than principles.

Interim conclusion: NATO was founded to repel external enemies – not to defend itself against the hegemon in its own house. Greenland would reveal that Article 5 is only a facade that only holds as long as Washington adheres to the role of protector.

V. Trump’s Greenland Obsession – From 2019 to 2026

In August 2019, Donald Trump caused international consternation when he publicly declared that the U.S. wanted to buy Greenland. He called it a “great deal” – strategically valuable, economically sensible. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen declined and called the offer “absurd.” Trump then canceled a state visit to Copenhagen in offense.

What seemed like a diplomatic grotesque in 2019 appears in a different light today:

• 2019: Purchase offer – rejected
• 2025: Renewed purchase offer + economic pressure (tariff threats)
• 2026: Military option (JSOC invasion plans)

The logic has remained the same – only the means have intensified. What was still formulated as a purchase offer in 2019 becomes a military threat in 2026. And again the argument is: security, control, deterrence against China and Russia.

The decisive question is therefore no longer: “Did Trump seriously want to buy Greenland?” But rather: “Has he ever had anything in mind other than control – no matter how?”

VI. Russia and China Are Watching – And Drawing Conclusions

While Western media discuss Trump’s Greenland plans as a foreign policy scandal, Moscow reacts with a much cooler but strategically more far-reaching view: What is actually happening here?

For the Kremlin, the answer is clear: The United States is shifting red lines – systematically. First Venezuela (president abducted), then oil tankers (seized on the high seas), now Greenland (NATO territory threatened). This is not a cascade of coincidences, but a test run.

A. Russia’s Response Options – Asymmetric, Calculated

A direct counterstrike against the United States is unlikely. Instead, Moscow could act on three levels:

1. Tanker for tanker: Russia could begin delaying or detaining American or Western-registered tankers in the Black Sea, in the Arctic, or in the South China Sea through “security inspections” – as retaliation in the same format.

2. Syria & Mali as signal zones: Russia could specifically obstruct UN operations, cancel logistics agreements, or undermine the presence of Western soldiers in the Middle East and Africa – to demonstrate to the U.S. their global vulnerabilities.

3. Arctic maneuvers: A Russian show of force near Svalbard or Franz Josef Land – such as through submarine maneuvers or military flight exercises – could be interpreted as a symbolic response to U.S. activities in Greenland: “We see you. We can do this too.”

Russia’s goal is not war – but the signal that every rule-breaking by the West entails an asymmetric reckoning.

B. China’s Calculation – “Watch and Wait,” But Not Idle

China would not express open threats – but would closely observe how the West deals with its own rule-breaking. Because this case would be a precedent that directly influences China’s future behavior in the South China Sea or toward Taiwan.

If the United States can take Greenland without a UN mandate, China can take Taiwan without a UN mandate.

China’s strategy:

Silent and strategic: China would diplomatically mobilize in the background, deepen economic alliances, and observe how Europe positions itself in the event of a U.S. violation of international law

New legitimation: Should Washington intervene in Greenland or elsewhere without a UN mandate, Beijing could later apply the same logic – such as for “protective custody” of Chinese minorities abroad

Symbolic solidarity with Russia: Without an open alliance, but with silent support – joint naval exercises, energy deliveries, vetoes in the UN Security Council

Conclusion: For Moscow and Beijing, Greenland is not merely an island in the ice, but a barometer for the future of the global order. And if the West does not defend this red line itself, Russia and China will draw their own conclusions.

VII. Three Scenarios 2026-2028 – Where Does Greenland Lead?

The Greenland crisis is not a closed event, but an evolving conflict. Three scenarios emerge:

Scenario 1: De-escalation Through Diplomacy (Probability: 20%)

What happens:

• U.S. withdraws military threats
• Denmark/U.S. agree on expanded usage rights for Pituffik Base
• NATO confirms Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland

Trigger: Massive European resistance, internal U.S. criticism (Senate/Congress), economic costs too high

Result: NATO survives, but damaged. Europe begins to seriously pursue strategic autonomy.

Scenario 2: NATO Split and European Emancipation (Probability: 45%)

What happens:

• U.S. takes Greenland militarily or through economic pressure
• Denmark invokes alliance case – is blocked
• France/Germany found European Defense Union (outside NATO)
• Baltics/Poland remain with U.S., Europe splits

Trigger: Europe recognizes that NATO no longer offers protection. Macron/Scholz/Starmer agree on “Post-NATO Europe”

Result: NATO exists formally but is functionless. Europe builds own defense, orients itself neutrally between U.S./China/Russia.

Scenario 3: BRICS Counterstrike and Multipolar Military Alliance (Probability: 35%)

What happens:

• U.S. takes Greenland
• China, Russia, Iran interpret this as clearance for own actions
• Coordinated escalation: China blockades Taiwan, Russia opens Kaliningrad corridor, Iran attacks Israel
• BRICS becomes de facto military alliance (not formally, but coordinated)
• Dollar loses status as reserve currency (Unit introduction, U.S. bond sell-off)

Trigger: U.S. shows that international law is meaningless. BRICS uses same argument for own expansion

Result: U.S. loses global hegemony. Multipolar world order emerges – not through negotiation, but through coordinated power projection.

VIII. Conclusion – The Question of the Century

Venezuela was a test. Greenland is the decision.

What is at stake is not only an Arctic island with 56,000 inhabitants. It is the question of whether the post-war order – based on international law, multilateral institutions, and collective security – still has a future. Or whether we are returning to a world in which power dominates over law, in which alliances break apart, and in which every state must fight for itself.

NATO was founded to secure peace. But what if the greatest peacebreaker is the strongest member?

Greenland will show whether Europe has the courage to emancipate itself – or whether it submits to U.S. dictates. It will show whether Russia and China react in a coordinated manner – or perish individually. And it will show whether the world is ready for a new order – or whether it sinks into chaos.

The next two years will decide which of the three scenarios becomes reality.

And the answer will not fall in Washington or Brussels – but in Moscow, Beijing, and the capitals of those states that have understood: Neutrality is no longer an option.

What if Greenland is only the trigger – for a coordinated BRICS counter-offensive?

What if China, Russia, and Iran strike simultaneously – Taiwan, Kaliningrad, Israel?

What if the dollar collapses – and the U.S. loses its hegemony?

Read all of this in the exclusive in-depth analysis in the subscriber area.

Michael Hollister is a geopolitical analyst and investigative journalist. He served six years in the German military, including peacekeeping deployments in the Balkans (SFOR, KFOR), followed by 14 years in IT security management. His analysis draws on primary sources to examine European militarization, Western intervention policy, and shifting power dynamics across Asia. A particular focus of his work lies in Southeast Asia, where he investigates strategic dependencies, spheres of influence, and security architectures. Hollister combines operational insider perspective with uncompromising systemic critique—beyond opinion journalism. His work appears on his bilingual website (German/English) www.michael-hollister.com, at Substack at https://michaelhollister.substack.com and in investigative outlets across the German-speaking world and the Anglosphere.

© Michael Hollister — Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text is explicitly welcome. The only requirement is proper source attribution and a link to www.michael-hollister.com (or in printed form the note “Source: www.michael-hollister.com”).

---