For the first time since the end of the Second World War, the West is facing a serious conflict within its own ranks. After 1945, Western states, despite a long history of waging wars against one another, chose a path of peace and cooperation. Nearly 80 million people were killed in the two world wars and, since 1945, most armed conflicts have taken place in the developing world.
The formation and consolidation of Nato was a major achievement aimed at ensuring unity within the transatlantic alliance. Yet in recent months, US President Donald Trump’s assertion that the US should take control of Greenland has exposed the fragility, and perhaps the myth, of Western unity.
During the recent World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump appeared to soften his rhetoric on Greenland, stating that he would neither take the autonomous Danish territory by force nor impose tariffs on eight European countries. Given the president’s unpredictable nature, however, it would be wishful thinking to assume that he has abandoned his ambition to bring the island under American tutelage. More alarming is the potential rupture in the transatlantic alliance, with a majority of European countries refusing to endorse the American position on Greenland and pledging instead to stand by Denmark, their Nato ally, against any future US aggression.
The emergence of the Arctic as a major flashpoint in Euro-American relations reflects growing tensions within the West. Even before the Greenland controversy, Europe was uneasy during Trump’s first term due to his anti-Nato rhetoric and criticism of Europe’s handling of migration. Now, in his second term, President Trump is openly defying Europe’s collective resolve to support Danish sovereignty over Greenland. In such a scenario, any armed conflict between the US and Europe would signal the effective end of the Western alliance. Greenland is also not the only source of discord. Trump’s remarks about Canada as a potential 51st state, the abduction of the Venezuelan president and first lady and threats directed at Panama, Mexico and Colombia all point to a deepening crisis within the Atlantic alliance.
There may be a temporary pause in the Euro-American tug-of-war over Greenland, but in view of Trump’s relentless insistence that Europe should take responsibility for its own security and adopt a harder line on migration, a renewed schism appears likely. Writing in ‘The Guardian’, Patrick Wintour notes that the risk of a military confrontation between Europe and the US “is not minuscule”. He cites Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, who warned on January 5 that if the US were to attack another Nato country, “that includes Nato and therefore post-second world war security”.
Wintour further argues that closing US access to Nato bases in Europe would be a logical endpoint, yet such a move would ultimately undermine US interests, particularly since Washington’s pursuit of Greenland is justified by the need to counter Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. Losing cooperation from Scandinavia, Iceland and the UK would not serve US national interests, a reality the American military would likely convey to its commander-in-chief.
Greenland and the Arctic are not the only points of contention between the US and Europe. President Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine is equally troubling. By pursuing a policy of appeasement, he is pressing Ukraine to accept a peace proposal that would legitimise Russia’s permanent annexation of Crimea and large parts of eastern Ukraine. In effect, Trump is asking Denmark to compromise its sovereignty over Greenland while simultaneously urging Ukraine to accept Russian territorial gains. Such outcomes are unacceptable not only to Denmark and Ukraine but also to most European countries.
Writing in ‘Responsible Statecraft’ on January 20, 2026, Jennifer Kavanagh argues that the integrity of the 76-year-old alliance is indeed in jeopardy, but that the dispute over Greenland is a symptom rather than the root cause. Nato, she contends, faces an existential challenge stemming from a fundamental divide between the US and its European allies over the nature and extent of the threat posed by Russia. While much of Europe views a future war with Russia as increasingly likely, influential voices in Washington and within the Trump administration no longer see Moscow as a conventional military threat or believe that it harbours imperial ambitions in Europe. By downplaying the Russian threat while escalating pressure on Denmark, a Nato ally, President Trump is pursuing a contradictory foreign policy that effectively appeases Russia at Europe’s expense.
The crisis in the Arctic, which threatens to shatter the myth of Western unity, must be analysed through three critical lenses. First, if Europe remains united in resisting Trump’s aggressive posture over Greenland and his appeasement of Russia over Ukraine, it may be able to counter policies that undermine Danish sovereignty and force Kyiv to accept an imposed territorial status quo. Russia and China, meanwhile, stand to benefit from Trump’s handling of the Atlantic alliance and his confrontational approach toward Europe.
It is in the interest of both Europe and the US to preserve transatlantic unity, as its rupture would only strengthen those who seek to dismantle Western cohesion. Second, Nato, with the exception of the US, remains largely intact. Even Canada, a close neighbour and ally, has grown uncomfortable with the Trump administration’s rhetoric about making it America’s 51st state. The isolation of the Trump administration is also evident within the US itself, where Democrats and segments of the Republican Party oppose his foreign policy choices. Should Republicans lose the midterm elections scheduled for November 2026, Trump’s approach toward Greenland and Ukraine could face significant constraints.
The Western alliance established with the formation of Nato on April 4, 1949 risks being exposed as a myth unless the Trump administration recognises that its aggressive policies serve only the interests of America’s adversaries, Russia and China. Ironically, rather than trusting Nato allies, the US president appears more inclined toward appeasing the Russian Federation.
If Europe chooses to pursue an independent course to protect Greenland from American expansionist ambitions, Nato may survive, but without meaningful US participation. Trump’s antagonism is not limited to Nato alone. His hostility toward the UN and his proposal for a parallel ‘Board of Peace’, coupled with the withdrawal from 66 international organisations within a single year, reflects a deepening global disorder and the growing fragility of American leadership.
The writer is a meritorious professor of International Relations and a former dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Karachi. He can be reached at: [email protected]
