Trump’s NATO Comments And Greenland Threats Deepen Transatlantic Rift

Transatlantic relations are once again in the global spotlight after a week of diplomatic turbulence, as US President Donald Trump’s actions and remarks sent shockwaves through European capitals and beyond. From threats to seize Greenland by force to controversial comments about NATO’s role in Afghanistan, the past days have exposed deep rifts and prompted urgent responses from leaders across the Atlantic.

On January 23, 2026, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly rebuked President Trump for statements made on Fox News, where Trump suggested that NATO allies had kept their distance during the Afghanistan conflict. Starmer didn’t mince words, calling Trump’s remarks “offensive and, frankly, shocking,” according to Al Jazeera. When pressed on whether Trump should apologize, Starmer replied, “If I had said something wrong or made such comments, I would certainly apologize.” He also took a moment to honor the 457 British soldiers who died in the US-led Afghanistan campaign that began in 2001, underscoring the United Kingdom’s significant sacrifice.

The White House, however, swiftly rejected Starmer’s criticism. In a statement to AFP, spokesperson Taylor Rogers defended Trump, asserting, “President Trump is absolutely right – the US has contributed more to NATO than any other country in the alliance.” This firm response from Washington showed little willingness to back down or issue the apology Starmer suggested.

Trump’s contentious remarks came on the heels of a dramatic week of escalating—and then abruptly de-escalating—tensions with Europe. Days earlier, Trump had threatened to use military force to seize Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, and floated a massive 200% tariff on French wine and champagne imports in response to European resistance to his Greenland ambitions. According to RFI, these threats rattled both European governments and financial markets, with Wall Street stocks taking a hit as the standoff intensified.

Yet, in a sudden reversal on January 22 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump pulled back. He announced he would not pursue military action against Greenland and withdrew the tariff threats, offering Europe and Greenland a temporary reprieve. The shift, as former French Ambassador to the US Philippe Etienne explained to RFI, was driven in part by economic realities: “Economic developments, especially market trends, contributed to these abrupt changes. Stock prices, including on Wall Street, fell sharply during the escalation, and I think this was important to President Trump and his Treasury Secretary.” Etienne also credited the unified stance of European governments and diplomatic efforts by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who “did everything possible to find solutions in which the US remains committed to European security and support for Ukraine.”

Trump’s comments in Davos didn’t stop at Greenland. He cast doubt on the reliability of NATO itself, stating, “We’ve never needed them, we’ve never really asked anything from them.” This assertion struck a nerve in Europe, where the collective security guarantee enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is a cornerstone of the alliance. After the September 11 attacks, NATO’s mutual defense clause was invoked for the first time, leading to a coalition effort in Afghanistan that saw more than 150,000 British troops deployed—the second-largest contingent after the US. The human cost was significant: the US lost over 2,400 soldiers, while the UK mourned 457, and other NATO members, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Denmark, also suffered casualties. According to a 2021 Brown University study, at least 46,319 Afghan civilians died directly as a result of the 2001 invasion, not counting indirect deaths from disease or deprivation.

Trump’s minimization of NATO’s role and sacrifices provoked a wave of anger across Europe. Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel called Trump’s claims “not true and disrespectful,” while Poland’s Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak Kamysz declared his country “a reliable and proven ally, and that will not change.” Prince Harry, who served two tours in Afghanistan, added a personal dimension, saying, “Thousands of lives have been changed forever. Parents had to bury their sons and daughters. Children have been orphaned. Families have had to bear the consequences.” He insisted that the sacrifices of British soldiers “deserve to be acknowledged honestly and respectfully.”

The underlying source of much of the recent tension was Trump’s revived ambition to acquire Greenland. European and Greenlandic leaders were united in their opposition, rejecting both the idea of a sale and the threat of force. According to L’Humanité, Denmark and Greenland made it clear that “NATO has no right to negotiate anything without Greenland’s participation.” The episode also revived discussions about military bases and sovereignty. Drawing a parallel with the British model in Cyprus, where the UK has maintained two sovereign military bases since 1960 under strict limitations, some officials floated the idea of a similar arrangement for US bases in Greenland. The British bases, covering 250 square kilometers, are vital for operations in Iraq, Syria, and humanitarian missions in Gaza, but their presence is tightly regulated by agreements prohibiting commercial development or border controls.

Trump’s maneuvering has not gone unnoticed by rivals. According to RFI, Russia and China have watched the discord within NATO and the transatlantic alliance with satisfaction. In Beijing, observers saw every display of American unilateralism as weakening Western alliances, thus benefiting China’s strategic ambitions in the Arctic. In Moscow, Trump’s Greenland rhetoric was seized upon to justify Russia’s own territorial claims, with the Russian Foreign Ministry noting, “As Trump said, Greenland is important for US security. Crimea is just as important for Russia.” The Kremlin, while skeptical of any real threat from NATO in the Arctic, welcomed the divisions as a distraction from Ukraine and a boon to its own interests.

Meanwhile, Trump used the Davos stage to announce the creation of a new Peace Council, a body he would personally lead to resolve global conflicts—positioned as a rival to the United Nations. The founding charter was signed by about 20 countries, but experts expressed skepticism. Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group told AFP, “It’s clear Trump wants to bypass Security Council vetoes and create an international organization where he and the US have significant influence over major peace and security issues.” Political scientist Ian Hurd of Northwestern University was even more blunt: “Trump has little legitimacy, no institutional foundation, and no organizational history. He’s not building a lasting authority. What he’s building is short-term compliance, transactional loyalty under threat. Once those threats disappear, so will the loyalty.”

As the week drew to a close, the first-ever three-party talks between Russia, the US, and Ukraine opened in Abu Dhabi. The Kremlin insisted that Ukraine must withdraw from Donbass as a precondition for any lasting agreement, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking in Davos, lamented Europe’s lack of unity and action, saying, “Europe seems lost trying to persuade the US president to change. Europe likes to talk about the future but avoids acting today.”

The events of the past week have left Europe grappling with the reality of a turbulent ally and a shifting security landscape. For now, the alliance holds, but the cracks are plain for all to see.