The invasion that would bury NATO
Europe is going through its lowest hours, caught between two narcissistic hyper-leaders: Putin, with his messianic beliefs of restoring Soviet glory, and Trump, with his economic ambitions involving businesses in which his family and friends are fundamentally involved.
To date, Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, has not said a word about the US president's verbal attacks on Greenland, which concern Denmark, an ally of Washington and member of the Transatlantic Alliance.
Rutte, who was Prime Minister of the Netherlands, is colloquially known as ‘Teflon Rutte’; practically everything slides off this schoolteacher.
Indignation at his silence (that of the lambs) is growing. That silence only emboldens Trump and makes his policy against his traditional European allies feel like the worst of winter storms. The fact that the leader of the Alliance has not even called for an extraordinary meeting of the allies with Trump and Secretaries Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth is interpreted as the worst kind of cowardice. Remain silent and the tyrant will grow stronger.
NATO was born on 4 April 1949 and currently brings together 33 countries in this defensive alliance with deterrent capacity, whose creation means peace of mind for its members because it provides an umbrella of mutual and multiple protection against an attack by a state.
Yes, an attack by a non-member country, of course. An attack by Russia or Iran or China or North Korea... an attack like that of the Taliban on the United States in 2001, which led to the activation of NATO's Article 5 on collective defence to attack Afghanistan.
NATO is prepared for that and more, but not for one member country to attack another member country. Not for the United States to invade Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark since 1814.
Related
Here in Europe, all possibilities are being considered regarding the actions that Trump, Rubio and Hegseth could take on Greenland, and moreover, do so imminently. What is the rush? It must be done before the legislative elections on 3 November. Expectations that the Republicans will lose Congress are very high, so operations like the one in Venezuela are very likely in Cuba and Iran.
With Greenland, there could be a referendum on independence financed by Trump, thus providing the justification (à la Putin) that the Greenlanders no longer want to depend on Denmark and want to do so instead on the United States. Or they could carry out a quick military operation, without casualties or resistance, and demand the political cooperation of the current Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens Frederik Nielsen.
Or there is also the more ‘polite’ option: for the United States to buy Greenland. The Italian newspaper Il Corriere Della Sera recently reported that the White House could offer $2.76 trillion for the purchase of this island, which is the largest in the world.
This week, there will be a meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and a group of Danish leaders to discuss the idea of annexing Greenland.
The pressure is brutal, and so will be the consequences. While European politicians remain silent, demonstrating their weakness and fear that the United States will abandon Europe to its fate, Putin's imperialist ambitions, which are currently quite quiet but watching every move of the White House like a cunning eagle, remain.
There are national security and defence reasons that the Pentagon is using to justify taking over the ice island. They want to avoid another Pearl Harbor. They want to prevent Russians, Chinese and terrorists from using Greenland to attack the United States.
Shipping routes and whether Greenland has rare earths or oil are secondary reasons at this point. Shipping routes will open up someday, in 50 or 70 years; as for rare earths, they do not have large reserves, nor do they have oil. Its economy depends on fishing and the primary production sector.
Denmark practically supports Greenland. So the Danish government must weigh up whether to lose it or sell it and make the most sensible decision so as not to jeopardise the existence of NATO.