ANALYSIS-Trump's Greenland push prompts NATO scramble for Arctic security ideas - and survival

Alliance looks for ways to boost presence in Arctic US takeover of Greenland could spell end of NATO Europeans say US does not need to own island to ensure security Trump has insisted nothing less than ownership is acceptable By Lili Bayer and Andrew Gray BRUSSELS, Jan 15 (Reuters) - The NATO security alliance that has protected Europe for decades finds itself with limited power to determine its own fate due to President Donald Trump’s desire for U.S. ownership of Greenland. Since Trump revived his ambition to claim the semi-autonomous Danish territory after the U.S. military operation to capture the Venezuelan president, NATO members have been scrambling for ideas to counter U.S. criticism that Greenland is under-protected as Russia and China take a greater interest in the Arctic and its mineral riches. Any forcible U.S. takeover of Greenland would be an unprecedented seizure of one NATO ally’s territory by another - the nuclear-armed superpower that is meant to provide the ultimate security guarantee for all members. Many politicians, diplomats and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic say that would mean the end of the alliance, or at least severely weaken it. That, in turn, could have devastating consequences for European security, leaving the continent much more vulnerable to a Russian attack. “I cannot think of other cases where NATO has been really on the line, and especially not where the culprit has been the United States,” said Sten Rynning, a professor at the University of Southern Denmark and author of several books on NATO. MORE SURVEILLANCE AND PATROLS MOOTED Discussions on what NATO could do about Greenland are at an early stage, diplomats say, but could include additional air surveillance, maritime patrols and greater use of technology to monitor the region. To act quickly rather than wait for a collective NATO decision, Denmark and some allies including Germany, France, Sweden and Norway on Wednesday announced small but symbolic troop deployments to Greenland for exercises to show commitment to Arctic security. That announcement came as the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers met U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington and found no resolution to the standoff. NATO’S CREDIBILITY ALREADY SEEN AS ‘COLLATERAL DAMAGE’ NATO members’ strategy of bolstering Arctic security will only succeed in keeping the alliance together if Trump accepts it as an alternative - or part of an alternative - to U.S. ownership. But he has repeatedly insisted that nothing less than ownership will do, leading many European officials to conclude that he is motivated more by a desire to expand U.S. territory than security concerns. “NATO can help be part of the solution by fleshing out a serious Arctic surveillance and deterrence strategy,” said Fabrice Pothier, a former NATO director of policy planning and current CEO of Rasmussen Global, a geopolitical consultancy founded by former NATO boss Anders Fogh Rasmussen. “But its credibility is also collateral damage of the tension so far. With his claims, Trump has introduced a doubt about U.S. commitment to NATO that will be seldom forgotten.” Trump said last week the U.S. remained committed to NATO and that Russia and China only feared the alliance as long as the United States was a member. He said NATO would become far more formidable with Greenland in the hands of the United States. For its part, Russia says NATO’s talk of Russia and China being a threat to Greenland is a myth designed to artificially whip up hysteria and that what it called the Western alliance’s policy of escalating confrontation in the Arctic was extremely dangerous. MANY NATO MEMBERS WANT FOCUS ON EASTERN FLANK For many NATO members, the latest blow-up over Greenland is an unwelcome and dangerous distraction. Since Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine brought war to NATO’s borders, the alliance has been intensely focused on bolstering its eastern flank over fears that one of its members could be Russian President Vladimir Putin’s next target. Leaders of both Denmark and Greenland have insisted the island is not for sale and does not want to be part of the United States. European leaders have rallied to support them in recent days. Many European diplomats see a U.S. military takeover of Greenland as unlikely, although Trump has repeatedly floated that scenario or refused to exclude it. But they acknowledge it would have huge repercussions. One Eastern European official said it would be “an earthquake situation with a risk of destroying NATO”. Danish and other European officials have pointed out that as Greenland is part of NATO, it is already covered by the alliance’s Article 5 collective security pact. So if Russia or China were to try to take the territory - as Trump has suggested they might - they would be risking war with the entire alliance, including the United States. Officials have also stressed that the United States already has a military base, Pituffik Space Base, in Greenland, with around 200 troops, and can deploy as many more forces as it wants under a 1951 agreement. NATO SAYS IT IS READY TO DO MORE FOR ARCTIC SECURITY However, diplomats say NATO allies agree the alliance as a whole should do more for Arctic security, which until now has largely been handled by countries in the region such as Denmark, Norway, Finland and Canada. Denmark has a Joint Arctic Command on Greenland, with about 150 military and civilian personnel. “When it comes to the Arctic region, we have to work together as an alliance,” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in Brussels on Tuesday. “And we are now putting more details to the next steps, to make sure that we indeed can do that as a collective alliance.” Rutte said Trump was right to highlight the need for greater Arctic security. He also pointed out that Denmark was investing more in Boeing B-8 surveillance aircraft, long-range drones, F-35 fighters, air-to-air refuelling, and other capabilities to better protect the region. However, as NATO operates by consensus, any major change to the alliance’s Arctic security posture would need sign-off from all 32 members - including the U.S.