During a Davos appearance in January, US President Donald Trump said he would not resort to force to seize Greenland, the semi-autonomous Danish territory that sits close to NATO borders. He also signaled a willingness to deploy tariffs against fellow NATO members who did not back his Greenland ambitions, then hinted at possible military options behind the scenes.
Washington argues that Greenland faces threats from Russia and China, and that pursuing control over the island would bolster national security. Trump has asserted that Washington would be better positioned than Copenhagen to defend Greenland if an attack occurred.
The immediate market reaction after Davos was a brief market rebound, following earlier volatility spurred by Trump’s rhetoric. Trust within NATO, however, faces a longer recovery. Analysts say the alliance’s cohesion will remain intact in practice, but members may seek ways to lessen dependence on Washington over time.
Stephen Pomper, Chief of Policy at the International Crisis Group, suggests NATO members will pursue three parallel tracks: preserving unity, supporting Denmark against external pressure, and building contingency plans for a future less dependent on the United States.
Despite the unpredictable White House, most experts agree that the United States would be unlikely to abandon NATO entirely—an alliance that enjoys broad bipartisan support at home.
Implications for Europe and Ukraine
A growing sense that the US can no longer be relied upon might push European states to shoulder more responsibility for regional security. Federica D’Alessandra, Co-Chair of the IBA Rule of Law Forum, notes that this could strengthen Europe’s role, though the damage to trust is already substantial. “After Trump, American political leadership must repair a great deal,” she says.
A weaker NATO could have wide-ranging consequences for Ukraine, which relies on allied coordination for ongoing support in its conflict with Russia. A dimmer alliance could affect weapons, intelligence, and training alike. Ukraine is already pursuing broader security arrangements, including the UK-Ukraine defense partnership, and expanding domestic defense production and cross-border procurement.
Yet without robust US engagement, deterring advanced missile threats may become harder, warns Anna Babych, Chair of the ESG Group at the IBA European Regional Forum. Internal fragmentation within the Western alliance could signal to Russia that the war can be protracted and the stakes raised.
Global shifts in norms
Trump’s Greenland stance, coupled with other U.S. actions—such as the detention of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in 2025 and strikes on Iranian facilities—has raised questions about America’s willingness to use force and the reliability of its commitments. Stephen Pomper notes that while the United States has historically claimed broad latitude to bend rules, global norms against redrawing borders by force were once a defining feature of international order. Revisions in rhetoric and policy alike risk undermining that framework.
When combined with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s militarization in the South China Sea, the once-clear prohibition on force is appearing more porous. While the situations differ, they share a troubling trend: sovereignty can be treated as negotiable. Without serious consequences, “might makes right” could become the default approach to territorial disputes, with effects reaching far beyond Greenland.
D’Alessandra and other experts highlight that, in recent conflicts, international law has faced serious challenges. If major powers treat legal norms as optional, smaller states may conclude that coercive power governs security, increasing the risk of miscalculation and broader conflict. Jonathan Hafetz of the IBA warns that a world where law takes a back seat to power undermines stable, rules-based order.
Rising interstate conflict
Since 2016, interstate wars have become more common, with 2024 recording the highest level of state-based armed conflict in seven decades, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Europe’s response to Greenland-related tensions will likely depend on coalitions of “middle powers”—a term used to describe a network of nations willing to uphold postwar commitments even when major powers falter.
D’Alessandra emphasizes that sustaining accountability without full US participation will be challenging. She and others advocate for cross-regional collaborations that reaffirm international obligations in today’s increasingly complex security environment.
