Washington Signals Willingness to Undermine the Postwar Alliance
U.S. President Donald Trump has effectively acknowledged a scenario in which the United States could sacrifice the North Atlantic alliance in pursuit of control over Greenland. In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, Trump conceded that Washington “may face a choice” between acquiring the strategically important territory and preserving NATO, the backbone of European security since the end of World War II.
While Trump avoided a direct answer, the framing itself sent a stark message to U.S. allies: long-standing red lines are no longer fixed, and the alliance is no longer treated as an untouchable pillar of American policy.
“I Don’t Need International Law”
Explaining why he insists on outright control rather than treaty-based arrangements or leases, Trump shifted from strategic reasoning to a blunt dismissal of legal constraints.
“Ownership gives you things you can’t get from a lease or a treaty. Signing a document doesn’t give you the same elements,” he said.
He went further when asked about international law:
“I don’t need international law. The only thing that can stop me is my own morality.”
In effect, the U.S. president suggested that neither alliance commitments nor international norms meaningfully bind him — only his personal judgment does.
Europe Hears a Threat, Not Rhetoric
In Copenhagen, the remarks were taken at face value. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any use of force against Greenland would amount to the collapse of NATO itself.
“If the United States attacks another NATO country militarily, everything stops — NATO included, and with it the security system built since 1945,” she said.
French President Emmanuel Macron was equally blunt, arguing that Washington is increasingly abandoning the international rules it once championed and distancing itself from its allies.
NATO as a Disposable Asset
According to Politico, Trump’s latest remarks are not an emotional outburst but a continuation of his long-standing effort to hollow out traditional alliances. He has again openly questioned whether NATO would come to America’s defense in a real crisis.
“I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, even as he added that the United States would continue to support its allies.
For European capitals, this reads less like reassurance and more like a warning: American support is now conditional — and reversible.
The End of Transatlantic Illusions
The severity of Trump’s language strikes at the core of trust. Even the suggestion that territorial ambition could outweigh collective defense undermines the very idea of NATO as a community of shared values rather than a temporary contract.
European analysts note that, for the first time at this level, the United States is signaling that the postwar security order is no longer sacrosanct. And while threats to NATO once came primarily from outside the alliance, they are now increasingly voiced from Washington itself.
This article was prepared based on materials published by Politico. The author does not claim authorship of the original text but presents their interpretation of the content for informational purposes.
The original article can be found at the following link: Politico.
All rights to the original text belong to Politico.
