A US general on Trump, Greenland and Nato in crisis

Key Concepts

• Transatlantic Alliance Stress: Increasing tensions and potential fractures within NATO due to US foreign policy decisions.
• US National Security Strategy (2026): Assertion of US dominance in the Western Hemisphere and denial of access to resources for China and Russia.
• Greenland Annexation: Potential US military operation to gain control of Greenland, raising concerns about conflict with Denmark (a NATO ally).
• Venezuelan Intervention: US raid and capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, focused on oil control and demonstrating dominance.
• Russian Shadow Fleet: Seizure of a tanker linked to Russia and Iran, enforcing sanctions and disrupting oil trade.
• Iranian Uprising: Brewing unrest in Iran with potential for revolution.
• NATO Cohesion: The historical strength of NATO based on trust and collective security, now threatened by US actions.
• Illegality of Orders: The principle that military personnel have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, particularly those violating international treaties.

International Affairs: A Week of Dramatic Shifts & NATO Under Strain (January 9th, 2025)

The week of January 9th, 2025, has been marked by a series of dramatic international events, including a US raid on Venezuela, discussions of a potential US annexation of Greenland, the seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker, and an emerging uprising in Iran. These events collectively place significant stress on the transatlantic alliance and raise questions about the future of NATO cohesion.

US Assertiveness & the Western Hemisphere

The administration’s new national security strategy, unveiled in November, centers on the assertion that the United States “owns the Western Hemisphere” and has the right to control resources and deny access to China and Russia. This strategy is driving actions in Venezuela, Greenland, the Caribbean, Colombia, Cuba, and even Canada. The Venezuelan intervention, while presented as a drug enforcement operation, is fundamentally about oil control and demonstrating US force projection capabilities. The operation itself was executed effectively by US special operators and intelligence professionals, but lacks a clear strategic objective beyond Maduro’s capture, leaving the existing regime largely intact and continuing suppression of the Venezuelan people.

The Greenland Question & NATO Implications

The potential annexation of Greenland, stemming from the Venezuela intervention, presents a direct challenge to NATO. Lieutenant General (Ret.) Ben Hodges emphasized that this is the first time he has witnessed the US taking action that could actively damage NATO’s cohesion and the trust that has historically been its “secret sauce.” While NATO has experienced internal tensions in the past – including fishing disputes between Britain and Iceland, France’s temporary withdrawal from NATO, and ongoing tensions between Greece and Turkey – the prospect of a conflict between two member states (US and Denmark) is unprecedented.

Hodges stated, “This is the first time where I've seen my country do something that potentially is going to damage the cohesion of NATO and the trust, which has always been the secret sauce of NATO.”

The administration’s claim of a Chinese and Russian naval presence in Greenland is demonstrably false, suggesting the true motivation is access to critical minerals believed to be under the ice. Hodges noted that Denmark and Greenlanders have openly invited US bases and investment, making a forceful takeover unnecessary and counterproductive.

Historical Precedents & Managing Intra-NATO Tensions

Past tensions within NATO, such as the Turkey-Greece conflict over Cyprus, were managed through professional military-to-military relationships and intervention by the US, UK, and France. The integration of officers from different NATO countries into command structures also fostered cooperation. However, the current situation is qualitatively different, potentially jeopardizing the fundamental principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

The Legal & Moral Dilemma of Unlawful Orders

Hodges stated he would refuse an order to annex Greenland, deeming it illegal under US law as it violates the North Atlantic Treaty. He emphasized the responsibility of senior officers to challenge unlawful orders and the importance of the “Nuremberg defense” – the principle that obedience to an unlawful order is not a defense against criminal charges. He acknowledged the difficulty for lower-ranking officers to make this determination and the importance of a strong ethical framework within the military.

Enforcing Sanctions & the Russian Shadow Fleet

The seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker in the North Atlantic, enforcing sanctions, was viewed positively by Hodges, highlighting the importance of actively disrupting Russia’s ability to finance its war in Ukraine. He advocated for similar enforcement actions by other nations, particularly in the Baltic Sea. However, he stressed the reliance on allied intelligence sharing and access for such operations to be successful.

European Agency & the Future of NATO

Hodges urged European nations to take greater responsibility for their own defense and to address the security concerns driving US actions in Greenland through increased military presence and cooperation. He suggested the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a UK-led coalition, could play a role in bolstering security in the North Atlantic. He expressed frustration with European reluctance to meet defense spending targets and called for a more proactive approach to collective security.

Conclusion

The events of this week signal a significant shift in US foreign policy, characterized by a more assertive and unilateral approach. This approach, while potentially effective in achieving short-term objectives, poses a serious threat to the long-term cohesion of NATO and the established international order. The future of the alliance hinges on the ability of the US to rebuild trust with its allies and for European nations to demonstrate a greater commitment to collective security. Hodges’s warning is clear: the current trajectory risks undermining the most successful alliance in history and handing a strategic victory to Russia.