The Current - Can NATO survive Trump's threats against Greenland?

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

The defence alliance's most powerful member is threatening the sovereignty of another. Whether or not the United States actually invades Greenland, the mere prospect shows the crisis facing NATO. Three defence experts from Canada, the United States, and Europe on what comes next.

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always overdelivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairro.ca.

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. Donald Trump is not backing down on the issue of Greenland. The U.S. President posted over the weekend that he would impose new tariffs on eight European countries starting next month, and that they would be in effect until such time as a deal is reached for the complete and total purchase of Greenland, as he puts it. Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spoke to NBC's Meet the Press. yesterday. I believe that the Europeans will understand that this is best for Greenland, best for Europe, and best for the United States. So the military action is still on the table? I haven't spoken

with the President on that. And again, I believe that the Europeans will understand that the best outcome is for the U.S. to maintain or receive control of Greenland. European countries responded immediately to the tariff threats, Sweden's Prime Minister posted on X, we will not let ourselves be blackmailed. And there are reports that the European Union is now considering a package of counter-tariffs. It all adds up to a significant escalation in the conflict and an unprecedented moment in the history of the NATO alliance, an alliance that had already been showing cracks. Joining me now are three people who can help us sort through the moment that we are in. retired Lieutenant General Douglas Lute is a former American ambassador to NATO.

Juana Lengescu was the spokesperson for NATO from 2010 to 2023. She is now a distinguished fellow at the Defense and Security think tank Royal United Services Institute. And Stephen Sademan is the director of the Canadian Defense and Security Network at Carlton University in Ottawa. Hello to all three of you. Good morning. Hello. Good morning. Doug, let me begin with you. Donald Trump's promise of tariffs against eight European countries if they stand in the way of the U.S.

buying Greenland is a real agitation. What do you think of the U.S. President's threats? Well, I think it's more than an agitation. I mean, that's a bit too mild. I think it's a serious, a serious challenge to two principles that have glued together the NATO alliance for now over 75 years. The first is American leadership. It places that in question. And second of all, it seriously erodes the trust among the now 32 allies that has kept NATO together for all these years. So this is a serious challenge. Steve, to tie economic policy like tariffs to an issue like Greenland's territorial sovereignty, which the U.S. president is doing and arguably using as a bit of a cudgel, how unusual is that? Well, it's not unusual for Trump.

He's been using tariffs for whatever desire he wants. This is one of the problems with it all, is that these threats are not. very credible because he's going to punch Canada in the face, no matter what Canada does. The same is for the allies. And Juana, let's bring you into our conversation. We heard what the Swedish Prime Minister said over the weekend, that they will not be held to blackmail this morning. The UK Prime Minister says this is wrong using tariffs and trying to acquire Greenland

in that way or really in any other way. What do you think of how European leaders have responded? They've responded in a united fashion, which I think is really important. important. And as you said, this morning, Sir Kirstama, the British Prime Minister, made clear that the use of tariffs against allies is completely wrong. As he put it, the trade war is in nobody's interest. And he suggested that calm discussion should be the way forward rather than tit for tariffs. However, the European Union, which of course Britain is no longer a member, has basically already put on ice, if you pardoned upon, the EU-U.S. trade.

which had been put together with a lot of hard work and lots of compromises last year. And what they have put on the table is the possibility of 93 billion euro retaliatory tariffs, which would cover a lot of American products from cars to poultry, from orange juice to motorbikes. And some like France are even mentioning the big anti-coercise. instrument, what they call the trade bazooka, which would be even more punishing. And so, Juan, I let me stay with you because there's another way that European countries are talking about pushing back. So we have Denmark, France, and Germany sending troops, albeit in small numbers to Greenland for military exercises. Our colleagues at CBC News are reporting

that Canada is considering or weighing, doing the same. This, again, seems to have sent the US president into a more annoyed and aggressive posture. What kind of message are the Europeans sending to him? Yeah, it's hard to understand why President Trump would have thought that that was an adversarial move by his European allies, because what the Europeans, led by Denmark, clearly were trying to signal, is that they are taking security in the high north seriously, that they are stepping up their efforts and that they are doing more, both nationally and as part of NATO. And everybody agrees that the best way to deal with security issues

in the High North, which of course are of great importance to everybody, is through NATO. And there is now discussion within NATO of a sort of mission, perhaps something that would be called Arctic Century, with more presence, more troops, more capabilities to make sure that we safeguard security in the high north. Doug, it is hard to imagine for, I think, a lot of people, that U.S. troops might try to take over Greenland. There's already a U.S. military footprint in Greenland. They can send as many troops as they want by this long ago, but existing deal.

Does this even seem plausible that they put boots on the ground in a more aggressive way to try and take it over? Well, I think a direct military incursion in Greenland is ridiculous. I mean, especially, as you mentioned, because there's a standing 1951 agreement between Denmark and the United States, which is essentially an open door to military presence, military access to Greenland, and to economic cooperation. So rather than blowing down a door, Trump can simply choose to walk through this open door by way of cooperation. So why isn't he? Well, unfortunately, we don't have President Trump on this call this morning, and we could ask him directly. And I suppose it's anyone's guess.

But hopefully, when he engages European allies face to face this week in Davos, he'll get some feedback about his rather aggressive approach. Okay. Steve, let's bring our Prime Minister, Prime Minister Mark Carney in on this. He has, of course, been in China and Qatar and now in Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. He was asked about the Greenland situation. He weighed in on this yesterday. Let's take a listen. It's a serious situation. And we're concerned.

We're concerned about this escalation, to be absolutely clear. We always will support sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries. wherever their geographic location is. I have spoken to our European NATO partners, a number of them, Nordic NATO partners. I've spoken to the Prime Minister of Greenland. And there's a full commitment, not surprisingly, as is appropriate, of NATO partners to the security of Greenland. So, Steve, you can hear there the Prime Minister choosing his words very carefully.

What do you think of the line that Mark Carney is walking here? Well, I think that between that statement and the rumors of sending Canadian troops to bolster this exercise, which may end up becoming some sort of long-term tripwire against the United States, is that with the China deal of the past week, we've reached a time frame where countries, including Canada, are no longer just willing to appease Trump. They find they've realized that doesn't work, that Trump has fixated on this, and they need to act before. Trump tries to present the allies with a fait accompli, Carney is willing to take costs. We campaigned on elbows up. We've had a lot of criticism for his cooperative moments with Trump. And I think at this point in time, he's realized that it's time to actually take strong stands for Canadian interests because Trump's not going to cooperate.

Trump has recently said he's going to reject NAFTA, 2.0. or Kuzma or Usma or whatever you want call it. So we're at the point of taking stands that have become necessary given Trump's threats, economic and otherwise. This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always over delivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little.

You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairbo.ca.a. Viking. Committed to exploring the world in comfort. Journey through the heart of Europe on a Viking long ship with thoughtful service and cultural enrichment. On board and on shore. Learn more at viking.com.

Doug, you know, a year ago there was rhetoric about Greenland. A lot of people dismissed it. It's just rhetoric, but it is now mounted into threats. And I'm wondering, because all three of you are experts on NATO, and I want to pivot a bit to talking more about NATO. How big of a threat is this to the NATO alliance? Well, I think it's a historically serious threat to the alliance. You know, NATO in its 75 plus years has gone through crises before.

I mean, think the 1956 Suez crisis, the war in Vietnam, the Euro missile crisis in the 80s, later the war in Iraq. So we've been through some tough straits before. But this is the first time, I think, in NATO's history, that the United States in particular has threatened the potential use of force or economic coercive measures against an ally. And so this is record-breaking and extremely serious. Of course, the U.S. President has long said that countries aren't pulling their weight when it comes to NATO, has forced countries to increase their spending on NATO. Trump has long complained about the U.S. playing too big of a role in the alliance, and in particular that funding of NATO.

Is if the U.S. does something Greenland, would that mean the end of NATO? And if that is the case, is Europe capable of defending itself right now without the U.S.? I think despite the bluster and the rhetoric, President Trump has been right that Europeans and indeed Canada had to invest much more in their defense and much faster. And that's not because of the threat from the US, but because of the real threats from Russia, China and many other challenges around the world. So I think he's right. And I think for too many decades, actually, many, including Canada, I must say, was saying, well, the high north is an area of low tension, so NATO shouldn't have anything to do with it. We're looking after it. So we see that Denmark, for instance, has started

investing, you know, $13.7 billion in the Arctic, and hopefully Canada will and others will also step up their investments. Because ultimately, what we see now in NATO is not so much, hopefully a breakup of the alliance, because that would be catastrophic, I think, for security for all our countries. But we do see a rebalancing within the alliance, with the Europeans and Canada taking over more of responsibilities. And I would argue that the crisis that we're in now, which is a serious and dangerous moment, should push everybody else to focus on defense and to invest much more, much, much faster than they've already committed to. Canada has, of course, committed to spending more on defense in our country.

Steve, the difference between Canada and the other NATO members is we live right on top of the United States. How vulnerable does all of this make our country? Is there a scenario where Canada is just going to have to choose between Europe and the U.S. when it comes to its defense? Well, I think it's where Canada is going to have to choose between the United States and itself. I don't think we can really count to the Europeans to come save us. at this point in time. They're focused on Greenland because Denmark is a member,

but we are subject to the whims of Donald Trump. The others talked about spending more on NATO, but we've made the commitment to spend more money on NATO. We are spending more money on NATO, yet Trump makes these threats. So again, the problem with Trump's strategies is that he's going to punch you in the face, he's going to threaten you no matter what you do. And so any promise he makes for restraint is incredible.

And this really is an existential crisis for NATO, that NATO's fight future is very much at risk. If I may just add, actually, you're not spending on NATO. You're spending on Canada. Everybody's spending on their own national defense budgets. They're not spending to, you know, for the headquarters in Brussels. Exactly. That's one of the challenges of Trump is that he's always mistaken that spending requirement as a typh or a protection racket. Canada is spending much more money on its own defense. It's mostly to satisfy the need to become more sovereign to become independent from the United States. And even so, these promises

spend more money on our own defenses are not changing Trump's stance. He's getting more aggressive, more obnoxious, more threatening. So it's not really doing anything for approving the relationship with Trump. Doug, you wanted in there, Hoppin. Yeah, Piers, you mentioned the sort of shift in military responsibilities among the 32 NATO allies. And I think that's proper. Europe does need to step, Europe and Canada do need to step up. But just two points. First of all, the outsized American investment in defense and the NATO alliance was not altruism. This wasn't just because we're good guys. This was deliberate, self-interested investment. And that's because our European allies are also together our largest trading partners. So our investment in NATO secured our commercial

ties to Europe, and together, the U.S. and Europe comprise something like 50% of global GDP. So this was very much in America's self-interest. And the economic dimension of this also represents a shift that's underway. I mean, this is perhaps most prominently demonstrated by Prime Minister Carney's visit to China, where he agreed with President Xi, a strategic partnership. And this is a dramatic shift away from the traditional Canadian U.S. trade relationship towards an emerging Canadian Chinese trade relationship. I want to ask all three of you this if we have time. And I know we focus in on this particular article of the NATO charter. And it's Article 5, which obligates members to respond if there is an attack on another member. Again, sometimes nowadays, I feel

like I'm going crazy. Like, are we really talking about the possibility of a NATO member? member attacking other than a member and other NATO members. How are you thinking about this? How surprised are you in the moment that we're in? And what do you think about how Article 5 of the charter may apply? It's not going to apply. The problem is that the NATO operates by consensus. They all have to agree.

And if the United States stays in NATO, NATO's not going to agree to respond to the United States because the United States will block it. And so that's step one. And step two of that very article has each country opting out if they choose to do so. So it is not a requirement. It is not automatic. And it's not going to kick in here. What it will do is if Trump gets more aggressive is it'll make that promise to apply it

anywhere else to be incredible. If the United States is attacking Greenland and attacking Denmark, then it's certainly not going to be supporting the Baltics for Russians poach on the Baltics. So it's going to undermine Article 5. but NATO itself cannot stop Trump from doing anything. Okay, let me go to one and then I'll come to you, Doug. Want to go ahead? Yeah, it obviously undermines trust within the alliance,

which is at the basis of the alliance, all for one and one for all. That's the whole point of Article 5, of course. But that's why I think it's really important that Europeans and Americans have tried to explain to each other that they really do rely on each other for their security, as Doug was saying earlier, And the only people who actually benefit from the current crisis, I think, are President Putin and President Xi,

because their aim has always been to divide the West, to create a new world order, to undermine NATO. And so, frankly, they must be reaching for the popcorn to enjoy this spectacle of the U.S. threatening its oldest and closest allies. Doug, I'll give you the last word. Sure. So, look, a careful reading of the Washington Treaty, the NATO Treaty, 1949, right? the original 12 members, to include Canada and the United States, before you get to Article 5, you have to read the preamble. The preamble says that all the signatories agree to rule together

collectively with three principles, democracy, individual liberty, and rule of law. Those are supposed to be the foundational values of the alliance. So I think before you get to Article 5, you have to ask ourselves, are we abiding by those founding values? And then second of all, Article 2 of the treaty says that among allies, they all agree that they'll settle disputes in a peaceful manner and by way of cooperative measures, not by way, obviously, not by way of coercion, extortion, or economic measures. So there's a lot in the treaty before you get to Article 5. We will have to leave it there for now, but no doubt we'll all be talking again. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Retired Lieutenant General Douglas Lute is a former American ambassador to NATO. Juana Lundjescu was the spokesperson for NATO from 2010-2020. She's now a distinguished fellow at the Defense and Security think tank Royal United Services Institute. And Stephen Sademan is the director of the Canadian Defense and Security Network at Ottawa's Carlton University. You've been listening to the current podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon. For more CBC podcasts, go to CBC.

www.ca slash podcasts.