Article 5
The Guardian’s defence and security editor tells us more about Greenland and the Nato crisis.
The idea that one Nato country could attack another – a US invasion of Greenland – is so alien that the most famous article in Nato’s founding treaty does not distinguish clearly what would happen if two of its members were at war.
Article 5, the cornerstone of mutual protection, dictates that “an armed attack against one or more” in Europe or North America shall be considered “an attack against them all”. Simple enough if the military threat comes from Russia, but more complicated when it comes from easily the alliance’s most powerful member.
A whole lot more complicated, I’m guessing.
“If the US chooses to attack another Nato country, everything will stop,” Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Fredriksen, said on Monday. The military alliance may well continue to exist but its effectiveness will be called into fundamental question; the obvious beneficiary, an already aggressive Moscow.
Notice “may” and “will” as opposed to “might” and “would”.
If the diplomatic dance and the noises were not clear enough, then the re-emergence of the territorial lust for Greenland in the aftermath of the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro has finally brought Nato itself sharply into focus, with the US explicitly challenging the historical sovereignty of Denmark, a fellow ally.
Nobody would realistically expect any of Nato’s 31 other members to defend Greenland militarily if the US sought to seize it, a point emphasised by Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller overnight. The real world, he added, was “governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power” – not treaties or mutual support.
Nor would they have any hope of doing so. The US has 1.3 million active military personnel, across all its services; Denmark 13,100. Nato figures show the US was expected to spend $845bn on defence in 2025, the other 31 allies a combined $559bn. The ease with which the US was able to capture Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is a demonstration of the scale of sheer American power.
Another bad moon.
The disparity in military strength doesn’t matter. The US military and its allies lost in Afghanistan, one of the world’s poorest countries. Despite its sophisticated weapons and strength on paper, the US military record since WW2 is shockingly poor.
You either stand up to the bully and accept potential defeat or you cower and get kicked anyway, over and over. Trump has earned the TACO nickname because he backs down when challenged. NATO members need to be much more forceful in responding to him.
Sumi, and we’re seeing that played out in Ukraine; I imagine Putin thought for sure it would be his by now. And they were defeated in Afghanistan, too.
A lot of people ignore the reality that no one is likely to fight harder than when they fight for their home.
It’s not just NATO. Turns out that the EU has a mutual defence clause.
Sorry for the weird formatting. That’s what happens when you copy and paste a PDF. It should just be two paragraphs, the second starting “Commitments and cooperation…”.
Sumi, iknklast
I completely agree. Unfortunately what we have seen so far offers precious little cause for optimism that European leaders are going to grow a spine for any reason, ever.
As many others have commented, the conclusion that no halfway rational leader can avoid drawing from this mess is that unless you are the biggest bully on the playground the only way to be somewhat “safe” is to have nuclear weapons. And with parties like Rassemblement National and Alternative für Deutschland already dangerously close to government power… :-/
Bjarte, unless they want to be irrelevant, the EU countries need to get their act together. I realize that having many sovereign countries makes cooperation difficult, especially when the risks and benefits are unevenly distributed. But China’s technological development has outpaced the US in many areas, and the EU risks being left behind.
Denmark and the EU should be raising the potential cost of taking Greenland. Increasing military presence on the island, anti-aircraft installations, regular military exercises with other countries, and defense drills for residents show resolve. They force an invader to assign more personnel and equipment to the task. I doubt there’s much appetite among Americans for taking casualties to conquer Greenland.
@Sumi – I totally agree both points. EU & the UK should have got their defence act together years ago, and not trusted the USA. Whether they have the will to do so is another question. The Baltic States and Poland and even Sweden (they have national service) who are on the borders of Russia may do so – but there are Putin allies there.
George Monbiot, of all people, was urging re-armament a year ago, anticipating a Putin/Trump alliance.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/04/donald-trump-uk-rearmament-vladimir-putin-defence