News & Comment

Even before the arrival of President Trump on the scene for the second time, it was pretty clear that a lot of the organisations, international organisations, whether that was the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation, or some of the arms control treaties, were being undermined and things that had once been international rules or norms were just being trodden upon... So I think we are in line for some realignment and re-jigging, and out of the chaos could come some good things, but for now it does seem like a lot of disruption."

One of the complaints of the Trump administration has been that the US always has to provide for European security and Europeans talk a lot but they don't really step up with any sort of meaningful military capabilities or presence. So I think it's important, even if it's just as you said a handful of forces who are there for exercises, it's an important signal to the US that says 'alright, we hear you. You allege there's a security gap, so we're going to step forward, we're going be present in the region'. I think the trick is now the Europeans, having made these announcements around more diplomatic presence, more military presence, they have to follow through."

You want to signal solidarity and presence and engagement, and send a message that Europe is stepping up for this alleged Russian and Chinese threat in and around Greenland. But you don’t want to kind of stick your finger in the eye of the United States or signal that you’re looking for some sort of confrontation." Perhaps for this reason, Ellehuus suggested NATO itself is holding back. “The one voice that has been quite silent is that of NATO,” she said. “It’s quite odd that Mark Rutte has not issued a secretary general statement expressing solidarity with Denmark and underscoring that any security concerns that the United States might have could legitimately be addressed through the NATO alliance, because both Denmark and Greenland are members of their territories covered by the Article Five guarantee. I think it does have consequences in terms of the credibility of the alliance, and I think we could see an intensification of the practice whereby allies are turning to bilateral or regional relationships to meet their security needs, rather than relying on multinational alliances like NATO.”