US President Donald Trump persistently wants to annex Greenland, which is part of Denmark. A necessary bill in this direction has already been submitted to the Senate by one of the Republican senators. On the other hand, some Western countries are planning to send troops to Greenland.
Discussions are increasing regarding the possibility that a US military intervention could lead to the disintegration of the NATO military alliance.
Likewise, the issue of any NATO member going to war with the US is also among serious possibilities, which would be a violation of Article 5 of the Alliance.
Thus, according to Article 5 of the NATO Charter, an attack on one NATO country is considered an attack on all member states.
In a statement to Modern.az, political scientist Natig Miri stated that any senator submitting a bill related to annexation to Congress is illegal:
“It is imperative that both the lower house of Congress – the House of Representatives – and the Senate make a decision regarding war against foreign countries or the conduct of any military operations. Annexation is a legal procedure. To annex any territory, the consent of its population is first required. This is possible through a referendum. Initiating the annexation process in the Senate before the local population in Greenland holds any vote is itself illegal. It is true that this still appears to be an issue raised by some senator. However, this did not emerge merely as a claim by some senator; it was pre-agreed with Donald Trump, but it is illegal. Denmark, to which Greenland officially and legally belongs, unequivocally opposes this. The European Union states, of which Denmark is a member, also oppose the annexation process.”
The political scientist emphasized that the annexation of Greenland would mean the end of NATO:
“These countries, including Denmark and the US, are NATO members. The emergence of such a situation within NATO means the disintegration of the military alliance. There are already concrete opinions that NATO is useless and has run its course. The Russia-Ukraine war also reveals the reality that NATO is not a functional mechanism. Donald Trump has repeatedly made statements about NATO being an unnecessary organization. Therefore, such an attack and annexation process will create a "nonsense." After this, it will be impossible to maintain NATO and carry it into the future. Even if it appears to stand as a name, it will be taken unseriously, which is a great disgrace for NATO, the military organization of the Euro-Atlantic space. The submission of such a project to the Senate indicates Donald Trump's readiness for this annexation process. Previously, Donald Trump had stated that in the near future, he might face a choice between "NATO or Greenland." In such a case, he would decide in favor of Greenland. This means the end of NATO. At the same time, I believe this will be a very serious event for the European Union to come to its senses. If NATO does not collapse, the European Union itself will not create a joint army. The European Union, created after World War II, considered itself comfortable and in paradise under the security umbrella of the US, and thus failed to establish a serious army or military-industrial complex. While the Russia-Ukraine war "knocks" on NATO's doors, the European Union still cannot jointly make these strategic decisions at the necessary level. How long can this false unity be maintained? From time to time, Donald Trump expresses this, declaring how weak and inept the European Union is. He declares that the US is not obliged to defend such an inept center.”
N. Miri believes that it is the European Union that provokes the US:
“That is, in reality, what reveals this truth and provokes the US is the ineptitude, false unity, and inability of the European Union to make swift decisions. The party to be blamed here is the European countries and the European Union. The truth is now emerging that the EU, which presents itself as a global power by slandering others under the umbrella of the US in the name of false democracy and human rights, is actually useless. If it were truly a global power center, could the US take such a step? The US cannot even take this step against small North Korea. Because it is confident and concerned that it will face resistance. However, from the European Union, apart from empty words, and gathering and dispersing, there is no unity, various structures, and decisions. The US leader and his administration also know this. That is why they are constantly criticizing the European Union.”
Military expert Adalat Verdiyev, however, emphasized that since the start of the Ukraine war, fragmentation, disagreements, and divisions within NATO have significantly increased:
“Although the US uses Russia and China's strengthening in the region and acquisition of new seas as a pretext, the main goal is to ensure its presence in the Arctic. Currently, the US only has early warning radar systems in Greenland. These are installed not for conducting combat operations, but to provide observation capabilities for airspace and sea areas. The US plans to take many steps to expand its control capabilities across all continents, seas, and oceans. The first of these plans will be the annexation of Greenland. Currently, the US has very significant capabilities in the Pacific Ocean. Russia and China also have access to the ocean. But there are very large US bases in the Philippines and Japan. In Iran, China and Russia lag behind the US in the balance of power. However, regarding the Atlantic, Russia can access it via the Black Sea. But in the Arctic, the US has no capabilities other than a radar station.”
The expert emphasized that Russia and China are taking sufficiently serious steps to strengthen their presence in that area:
“To prevent these steps, it can be achieved through negotiations, payment of some financial resources, or the use of force. However, there is no force within NATO that would fight against the US. The US is looking for certain pretexts to withdraw from NATO. There will be statements, but no one will declare war against the US, because this would not lead to a good outcome. Fighting with the US is very dangerous.”
