SALEN, Sweden — A European Union defense commissioner warned that any U.S. military takeover of Greenland would fracture NATO and poison transatlantic ties as Denmark and the United States prepare talks on the Arctic territory, Jan. 12, 2026.
European Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius, speaking at a security conference in Sweden, said Europe should treat the idea of a forced grab as an existential threat to the alliance and as a scenario that would force EU members to confront their own mutual-defense commitments to Denmark. Kubilius said the EU could help provide security for Greenland if Copenhagen asked, including with troops and military assets.
The warning follows renewed public comments by President Donald Trump that the United States “must own” Greenland to block future Russian or Chinese moves in the Arctic, even as both Denmark and Greenland have rejected any sale and the prospect of coercion has sparked alarm across European capitals.
Greenland’s message from Nuuk: defense belongs in NATO
Greenland’s coalition government, based in Nuuk, said it would intensify efforts to ensure Greenland’s defense is handled “under the auspices of NATO,” adding that it “can in no way accept” a U.S. takeover. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and covered by the alliance through that relationship, the government said.
That push puts the spotlight on an uncomfortable question: what happens when the pressure comes from inside the alliance. An AP explainer on how NATO works during the Greenland dispute notes that NATO’s collective-defense pledge is built for attacks by outsiders, not open conflict between members, and that Denmark could seek formal consultations under Article 4 if it views its security or territorial integrity as threatened.
What Article 42.7 could mean for Greenland
Kubilius pointed to the EU’s “mutual assistance clause,” often described as Article 42(7), which obliges member states to aid a member that suffers armed aggression. The European External Action Service summary of Article 42(7) emphasizes that assistance can range from political support to practical help, and it exists alongside — not as a replacement for — NATO’s role for most EU members.
NATO’s own framing of its core promise is clear: Article 5 collective defense treats an armed attack on one ally as an attack on all. But alliance action depends on consensus politics — and that is exactly what would be tested if the aggressor were also the alliance’s largest military power.
Why Greenland keeps returning to the agenda
The latest flare-up is not the first. In 2019, Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland triggered a diplomatic spat that culminated in him canceling a planned Denmark visit after Denmark’s prime minister rejected the idea as “absurd,” Reuters reported at the time. That episode became a marker for how quickly Greenland can turn from Arctic geography into alliance politics.
In 2020, Washington moved to deepen its Arctic footprint through diplomacy and development: Reuters reported the U.S. announced a $12.1 million economic package for Greenland and planned to reopen a consulate in Nuuk, part of a broader effort to counter Russian and Chinese interest in the region. The aid announcement underscored how strategic competition and Greenland’s resources have increasingly intersected with security policy.
By June 2020, U.S. diplomats did reopen a consulate presence in Nuuk — a step detailed in a 2021 Foreign Service Journal account of the U.S. return to Nuuk, which described the post as part of a push to broaden ties in trade, education and Arctic issues. That history is now shaping the present: Greenland’s leaders are again insisting that any security response runs through allies and institutions, not bilateral pressure.
For now, officials on both sides of the Atlantic are signaling that the immediate path is diplomacy — but the stakes are unmistakable. Kubilius said he does not expect an invasion, yet his warning was blunt: an attempt to take Greenland by force would not just redraw an Arctic map, it would call NATO’s future into question.
