If NATO Dies, Do We Really Have to Mourn?
Donald Trump's Greenland-gobbling may mean the end of the Atlanticist dream, which should have ended with the fall of communism
The New York Times wonders what Donald Trump taking over Greenland would mean for NATO:
Over the past year, President Trump has pushed NATO with threats and coercion to make divisive changes. Now he is threatening to seize control of Greenland, potentially with military force, which has heightened concerns that he will destroy the trans-Atlantic security alliance…
There is widespread public support in the United States for the alliance, which was created after World War II to deter the Soviet Union. If the president tried to thwart NATO by controlling Greenland, “I think Congress will stop him,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia.
NATO is history’s most expensive self-licking ice cream cone. Proponents spent much of the last three decades taking bold, often destructive policy actions to convince taxpayers of member nations the alliance needs to keep existing. We’ve redrawn the world map multiple times and even invented new forms of war just to give it something to do. It’s madness, but few have been willing to say so.
Now we’re told the issue with Trump possibly occupying Greenland isn’t that it might be crazy or bad for Greenland, but that it might hurt the “trans-Atlantic security alliance.” Unless it’s the good part? A brief history of the mad policy gambits undertaken to save NATO since the Soviet collapse:
