At first, it seemed as if it was just one
more example of President Donald Trump trolling his critics. When,
following his re-election in 2024, the president revived the idea of the
United States acquiring Greenland by one means or another, most of his
supporters probably didn’t think he was all that serious about it.
But in recent weeks, as his demands that
Denmark sell the Arctic land mass escalated, it became clear that he
wasn’t kidding. His threats that America might punish NATO allies with
tariffs if they didn’t go along with the scheme or that the United
States might even take Greenland by force have turned the question of
the ownership of one of the least green places on earth into a
foreign-policy crisis.
Rather than just a function of what
critics consider his megalomania and instinctive authoritarianism,
control of Greenland is an important issue that requires serious
examination. More than that, the discussion raises serious questions
about not just how to value allies but what the United States has a
right to expect from them. This applies not just to U.S. relations with
NATO but to what America can expect from Israel, as well as what, in
return, Jerusalem should expect from Washington. Meanwhile, NATO
countries are wringing their hands and bewailing what they consider to
be Trump’s bad behavior.
Bad optics, important question
The spectacle of Trump and other
administration officials bullying little Denmark has gone over badly
abroad. And for Trump’s domestic critics, who are already acting as if
his enforcement of immigration laws marks the end of democracy, if not
Western civilization itself, outrage about his Greenland policy is just
one more reason for them to view him with disgust.
It may be difficult as it is to look
beyond the bad optics of picking on the Danes or the question of whether
a dispute about Greenland is worth risking the possible destruction of
the NATO alliance. But it turns out that Trump’s concerns about the
strategic importance of the massive ice-covered island are not
frivolous. Nor is it outrageous for him to think that leaving it in the
hands of the Danes while the United States is obliged to pay for its
defense, as well as the rest of the West, is unfair.
That was the upshot of one of a flurry of New York Times
articles aimed at skewering Trump’s position. In it, the liberal
newspaper conceded that in an era of cyber warfare and development of
the Arctic driven by sophisticated technology and concerns about the future of the ice that covers most of it, Greenland really is vital to the security of the West.
Despite the obsessive concerns of
environmentalists about the polar icecaps, the world hasn’t paid much
attention to the fact that the Arctic has become the scene of a new
“great game” rivalry between the United States and its allies on the one
hand and the Chinese and the Russians on the other. Of course, the
article also claimed that Trump had an “exit ramp” he could easily take
to end the controversy. Since an existing treaty gives America the right
to build bases there, Washington could just go ahead and do so with
Denmark’s blessing, and spare Europe and the world from further
tensions.
As the piece makes clear, although Denmark
and other NATO nations that have spent the last weeks huffing and
puffing about Trump’s bad manners in raising the question of Greenland’s
future, these areas have no intention of contributing to dealing with
what even the Times agrees is the danger posed by Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic.
Benefiting from America and complaining about it
In other words, they expect the United
States to do in Greenland what it has essentially done for the rest of
Europe since 1945: pay for its security and meekly accept that the
beneficiaries of its largesse get to complain about Americans pushing
them around.
Much of the coverage of the controversy
centers on some of the less than flattering aspects of Trump’s bluster
about a country that is more ice than green, such as the report
that he sent a text to Norway’s prime minister, saying since he had
been denied the Nobel Peace Prize (which is awarded by the Oslo-based
Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian government), he doesn’t feel
obligated to play nice with Europe.
But when placed in the context of the
necessity for the West to invest heavily in security in Greenland and
the long record of prosperous NATO countries letting the American
taxpayers pay the bill for their defense, Trump’s demand seems less
unreasonable.
So, if the Times and the other
Trump critics are going to wax lyrical about the way Trump’s rhetoric
and potential actions could break up the NATO alliance, it might be a
good time to ask what should be expected from America’s allies, other
than smoldering contempt for the president.
‘America First’ model ally
That’s why the Greenland controversy sheds
insight on why the U.S.-Israel alliance —despite the carping about it
from those who hate the Jewish state and resent the $3 billion in aid it
receives from Washington—is actually far more equitable in many ways
than the much-lauded NATO alliance.
The price tag for U.S. military assistance
to Israel does remain high. And yet, to put it in perspective, it is a
fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars that Washington has sent
to Ukraine in the last four years. Israel would be wise to reduce and
eventually phase out the aid completely since it is a political liability to the Jewish state and its supporters.
But what those Israel-bashers who moan
about billions going to Israel that they think should be spent at home
forget is that almost all of the money is spent in the United States,
not overseas. It does enable Israel to purchase weapons and ammunition
that are vitally needed to maintain its strategic advantage over its
foes and to fight long wars such as the battles against Hamas and
Hezbollah terrorists.
Even if the aid continues, it is money
well spent in terms of the advantages it brings. Israel’s victories in
those battles also benefit America, which is the ultimate target of its
Islamist foes. And the arms that Israel buys in the United States are
then improved by Israel’s technological prowess. The joint projects have
not only enabled our nation to have a viable missile-defense program,
but the intelligence shared by Israel with Washington offers invaluable
advantages.
More than that, Israel is an ally that is prepared to defend itself. It just needs help procuring the weapons it needs.
By contrast, the NATO nations have been
relative freeloaders for many decades, sitting back and letting
Americans pay for their defense, and even stationing troops and bases in
Europe to ensure that it remains free. Rich Western European countries
like Denmark have enjoyed the umbrella of U.S. security since World War
II and have only occasionally reciprocated the assistance by actions
that show they are ready to share the burden.
While, thanks to Trump’s advocacy on the
issue, many NATO allies are now paying for more of their defense, the
current situation remains one in which America is still largely
subsidizing European defense, despite heightened regional concerns
because of Russian aggression against Ukraine. And rather than that
assistance doled out in legislation labeled as “aid,” much of what U.S.
taxpayers give to Europe is hidden in the U.S. defense budget, making it
harder to see just how indebted these nations are to their generosity.
By contrast, and as Vice President JD Vance said in a speech
last year, Israel is the ideal American ally from an “America First”
perspective. He spoke of how it is “on a per capita basis one of the
most dynamic and technologically advanced countries in the world.” That
is beneficial to the United States because, as he noted, it gave America
“missile-defense parity” with its foes.
More than that, he said, it was fair to ask what America should want from its allies.
“Do we want clients who depend on us, who
can’t do anything without us? Or do we want real allies who can actually
advance their interests on their own with America playing a leadership
role,” Vance said. As he made clear, Israel fits his definition of “real
allies,” while the NATO countries do not.
The future of NATO
That’s why all the European posturing
about divorcing from NATO and the United States because of the dispute
over Greenland is just hot air. If the countries involved wanted to pay
for their own defense, they could do so. However, it’s painfully obvious
that most of them consider even minimal contributions to the effort to
deter Russia and China to be unreasonably burdensome. What they want
from America is for it to keep quiet and continue to fork over funds for
their security, including the massive investment needed in Greenland.
Trump thinks that’s not fair. And he’s not wrong to view it that way.
Does America require sovereignty over
Greenland to ensure that the Arctic doesn’t become a Russian or Chinese
lake? Not necessarily. But if the Europeans aren’t going to pay their
fair share for defending it, then it’s not crazy for Trump to say that
Denmark should just sell it.
Prior American governments have sought to
purchase it, going back to the postwar Truman administration and even to
the 1860s (when Secretary of State William Seward vainly sought to buy
it, but then settled for getting Russia to sell Alaska). So, depicting
the request as just vintage Trumpian insanity is misleading, even if the
manner in which the president has pursued it is hard to defend. On the
flip side, if he wasn’t blustering and making threats about Greenland,
would the Europeans even listen to his arguments?
Regardless of how this matter is resolved,
the dustup over Greenland should serve as the starting point for a
serious discussion about what alliances mean in the 21st century. NATO
served a vital purpose during the Cold War. But as the debate about
Greenland and the Europeans’ reluctance to either support its
development as a security hub or to sell it to the Americans
illustrates, it increasingly seems more a tribute to the past than an
essential element of U.S. security in 2026. By contrast, Israel, which
does not have the advantage of being a member of NATO—and all the rights
and privileges that go with it—is more important to U.S. defense than
ever.
