Senior European officials are warning that any U.S. attempt to forcibly annex Greenland would trigger sweeping consequences for America’s military footprint across Europe, including the potential loss of access to key U.S. bases.
The comments come as President Trump sharpens his rhetoric around acquiring Greenland, reviving and expanding a proposal he first floated in 2019 amid rising tensions with Russia and China in the Arctic.
Prominent Europeans Issue Urgent Warnings
Günther Fehlinger, chairman of the Austrian Committee for NATO Enlargement, said in a televised interview that a U.S. annexation of Greenland could end American basing rights across Europe.
“If you take Greenland, you have to leave,” Fehlinger predicted.
A clip of the interview posted to X referenced Europe’s post-World War II leverage and argued that European states will go their separate ways if Washington abandons alliance norms.
Fehlinger does not have the authority to enforce such a move. Still, his remarks reflect a broader shift in tone among European leaders.
Denmark: Use of Force Would End NATO as We Know It
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned Tuesday that any use of force to seize Greenland would render the post-war NATO alliance “defunct” and halt all existing security cooperation with the United States.
Greenland is a self-governing autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Copenhagen has consistently opposed transferring sovereignty.
Several European governments have aligned with Denmark’s position. Leaders from the ideologically diverse governments of Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom issued joint statements affirming Denmark’s territorial integrity and rejecting U.S. military options.
They emphasized that the future of the vast Arctic island is a matter for Denmark and Greenland alone to decide.
The leaders of Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Luxembourg, and Slovenia have also voiced their support for the original statement, arguing that Western nations are strongest when they act together rather than allowing themselves to be divided.
Mixed Signals From Washington
Concerns have also surfaced on Capitol Hill. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), normally a staunch ally of the president, said Tuesday night that U.S. military action in Greenland “would not be appropriate” and claimed he had not seen any White House statements supporting such a move.
That position contrasts with earlier comments from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who reiterated that “utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal” and described Greenland as a “national security priority.”
Former senior U.S. commanders have also weighed in. Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, warned that annexation would almost certainly lead to “a reduction in access to bases across Europe,” severely undermining U.S. security interests.
What’s at Stake for the U.S.
The United States currently operates the Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, in Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark. The installation plays a critical role in missile warning and space surveillance for both the U.S. and NATO.
Under that agreement, the U.S. already has the right to build and operate military facilities in Greenland, subject to notifying Danish and Greenlandic authorities. Denmark has historically accommodated the American presence, in part because it lacks the capacity to defend the vast island on its own and relies on NATO security guarantees.
Denmark even offered last year to allow an expanded U.S. military presence in Greenland. The White House showed little interest, instead focusing on acquiring the territory outright.
Strategic Tradeoffs
Greenland offers clear strategic advantages:
- Forward-positioned missile defense and early warning sites
- Access to Arctic shipping lanes as ice recedes
- Significant rare earth mineral reserves, estimated at roughly 25% of global supply
But experts argue that those gains pale in comparison to what could be lost.
NATO provides the United States with collective defense under Article 5, shared intelligence, interoperable forces, and economic stability among allied states. NATO allies now account for more than $1.2 trillion in combined defense spending.
From an international perspective, eroding the alliance over Greenland would impose long-term costs that far outweigh any gains from territory or resources.
What to Watch Next
- Whether the White House clarifies or moderates its rhetoric
- Congressional responses as the debate sharpens
- Potential formal statements from NATO leadership
- Public reaction in Greenland and Denmark
As tensions escalate, European leaders consistently emphasize that any forcible border changes would severely threaten America’s influence in Europe and the very future of NATO.
READ NEXT: Bitter Feud Erupts as More High-Profile Conservatives Clash
We need to leave those bases anyway. The s.o.b.’s need to spend a lot of money and provide for their own defense! If they are going to talk the talk then they need to walk the walk.
Good. It’s long past time we stopped spending our money to defend Europe. Let them carry their own weight for a change.
Greenland is on the North American Continental plate, so technically part of North America. However, I do not favor any use of USA’s military might or any other attempts to take over Greenland. Greenland should have a referendum on independence and, if they so decide, negotiate a mutually beneficial treaty with the USA. If ever in the future they wish to be annexed or become a protectorate or other closer legal status, they would be welcome to pursue it. Our interests in self protection are mutual, but do not require us (the USA) to control Greenland in order to accomplish them.
Without the USA there is NO NATO.
The U.S. should work diplomatically with the people of Greenland, it would be economically beneficial to the Greenlanders and very profitable the people monetary wise as well as security too. Something Denmark cannot provide. And I would tell that Austrian nut to go soak his head. We are not going to invade Greenland and this no teeth Austrian should shut up and pay up their 5% obligation to NATO. This joker is gas lighting and trying to insight a load of crap. Our bases in Europe will stay there, we have good relations with Poland, Italy, England and others so, I would not be to concerned. NATO needs the U.S. but I don’t think the U.S. needs NATO. We’re there to help and support the free nations of Europe with their security. So, I say to this Austrian nut shut your pie hole and start kicking in your 5% for defense that you’ve been slacking on for years.
You mean that Europe will then have to defend itself against enemies foreign and domestic, instead of having America defend them as we have done since World War 2? Gee.
European Officials Warn: US Annexation of Greenland could cost America its bases in Europe… As long we don’t need to spend our money.
It’s about time we got out of Europe anyway. Let them defend themselves.
During WWII, when Denmark fell to Nazi Gerany, Denmark abdicated its political and economic control and defense responsibility to us. We fulfilled those roles and responsibilities. No, we should not annex Greenland, but through economic and diplomatic treaty, we could make it a self-governing territory of the United States.
Screw the EU. US bases in their countries primarily benefit those European countries. Basing in Greenland is better strategically and tactically than basing in Europe. It’s a better defensive buffer for us than basing in Europe. Let the countries of the EU do more for their own defense and obligation to NATO. We’re the 900 lb. gorilla in NATO and we can use that strength to protect and defend ourselves, first. NATO obligations serve more to protect Europe; they’re not protecting us. If TSHTF we’ll all be in it together, but US bases in Greenland have a better life expectancy in Greenland than in Europe.
Gotta laugh. We are in the EU because of WWII so do kick us out of the EU please. Then we don’t need to support you quite capable europeans. Manage the soviet union and china on your own! And that is the way it is today in 2026 in the EU today. Adios is what I propose! Really and the sooner the better but that means giving us back everything that is ours or you all wonderful EU folks paying us for what ever is left since this is supposedly what you are requesting! Got it?