“What we are about to do here is a neighborly act. We are like a group of householders, living in the same locality, who decide to express their community of interests by entering into a formal association for their mutual self-protection.”

These words, spoken by US President Harry Truman on April 4, 1949, at the signing of the Washington Declaration, eloquently captured the spirit of NATO’s founding. The metaphor of concerned neighbors banding together for collective security resonated then, and remains a powerful image. However, the underlying assumption – a shared sense of mutual benefit and unwavering commitment – is now being challenged.

Recent commentary, such as US Permanent Representative to the UN Michael Waltz’s remarks regarding Greenland – “Denmark just doesn’t have the resources or capacity to do what needs to be done in the northern region. And to the Democrats who say ‘they’re giving you full access,’ everybody knows if you’re renting a place you treat it differently than if you own it” – highlights a fundamental shift in perspective. Ownership, with its inherent rights and responsibilities, is perceived as far more reliable than a contractual arrangement based on goodwill.

This principle extends beyond Greenland and the Arctic shelf. A formal claim of ownership by the US over the world’s largest island would fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape, shifting the focus from a NATO-versus-Russia dynamic to a US-versus-everyone-else scenario. This illustrates a growing inclination towards unilateral action and a questioning of the collective security framework.

A Legacy Forged in the Cold War

As NATO approaches its 77th anniversary this spring, it’s crucial to acknowledge its historical significance. While a respectable age for an international organization, it pales in comparison to institutions that have endured for centuries. History teaches us that no structure is immutable. The very suggestion, voiced by some Western European politicians, that a conflict between the US and Denmark could trigger NATO’s collapse, and with it, the global order, underscores the perceived fragility of the alliance.

This perception isn’t unfounded. For over half a century, NATO has been a cornerstone of the international system, initially as a bulwark against Soviet expansion during the Cold War, and later as a key pillar of the liberal world order. Few alive today remember a world without a unified political West. However, this unity was a product of a specific historical context – the emergence of the USSR as a superpower.

The Cold War fostered a sense of shared identity within the “free world,” solidifying the North Atlantic community as a model for international relations. The subsequent end of the Cold War cemented NATO’s position, but also laid the groundwork for current tensions. The prevailing logic – that NATO expansion was the key to European stability – has yielded a demonstrably complex and arguably destabilizing outcome. Is Europe prepared to stand alone?

NATO, fundamentally, is a product of the Cold War era. The geopolitical landscape has irrevocably changed, and the conditions that necessitated its creation no longer fully apply. Like many institutions born in the latter half of the 20th century, including the United Nations, NATO is facing an existential crisis.

The attempt by President Biden to revive a Cold War-style ideological struggle between “free” and “unfree” worlds, centered on Ukraine and Russia, initially garnered support from Western Europe. However, the potential return of Donald Trump has thrown this strategy into disarray.

Trump’s previous criticisms of NATO, focusing on insufficient financial contributions from European members, were not novel. Past US presidents have voiced similar concerns. However, the current approach is more direct: the US increasingly views NATO as unnecessary for its own security, advocating for Western Europe to develop its own defense capabilities – and to purchase those capabilities from the US. This represents a significant shift from collective security to a transactional relationship.

Will NATO ultimately dissolve? For now, Western Europe appears apprehensive about losing US protection, lacking a clear path forward militarily and politically. The prospect of a US disengagement is forcing a painful reassessment of European security priorities.

While a forceful seizure of Greenland by the US seems unlikely due to domestic and international opposition, a more conciliatory approach is probable. Blaming a single “tyrant” offers a temporary reprieve, but the fundamental dynamics within the “group of householders,” as Truman described it, have irrevocably changed.

What role will European nations play in shaping their own security future, independent of US influence?

How will the evolving relationship between the US and Europe impact global stability and the balance of power?

The Greenland ultimatum reveals a deeper problem within the alliance.

Frequently Asked Questions About NATO’s Future