U.S., NATO have long history of not being serious about Greenland. That's about to change

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's don't-poke-the-bear approach to dealing with U.S. President Donald Trump was on full display Monday as he threaded his way around questions about the possible introduction of European troops in Greenland.

There were reports over the weekend that a group of countries — led by the U.K. and Germany — are discussing a military presence on the Arctic island as a hedge against American annexation.

Trump's approach of doing something about Greenland "whether they like it or not" and threats of using military force against the semi-autonomous Danish territory — whether it breaks NATO or not — have turned the spotlight on issues that both the alliance and United States have long overlooked.

Rutte tacitly acknowledged that Europeans are holding discussions about improved Arctic security. But he downplayed those conversations, saying they're simply an extension of talks which began midway through last year at the request of seven allied Arctic nations, including the United States.

"We have to work together to make sure that the Arctic stays safe and currently we are discussing the next step to do that, how to make sure that we give practical follow-up on those discussions," Rutte said.

"How to ensure that as an alliance we do everything collectively and through our individual allies to make sure that the Arctic stays safe, as we all agree that that has to be a priority."

The idea appears to be to convince Trump that NATO is as interested as he is in beefing up the defences of the island territory.

It's an interesting turn given that Arctic security has been on the back burner for both the United States and NATO for decades.

Having said that, a noticeable attitude shift toward the region began in Washington in 2022 and only accelerated under the second Trump administration.

While Canada has put increased policy focus and pledged billions in additional spending in the Far North, the Western military alliance overall has been caught flat-footed by increased security pressure from the U.S.

For example, NATO has no official policy on the Arctic, nor a command devoted to the region, noted a recent report by the Arctic Institute Center for Circumpolar Security Studies.

"Over the past 15 years, NATO officials have dismissed ideas of developing a dedicated body to oversee Arctic projects," said a June 2024 report, which noted that over the years leaders of the alliance have believed that putting emphasis on the Far North would undermine NATO's core mission of defending Europe.

As late as 2020, the idea of a separate command was publicly dismissed.

NATO does maintain a joint force command in Norfolk, Va., which has a wide remit that includes the United Kingdom and Norway, Greenland and Iceland, but some experts believe that it's a poor substitute for a dedicated command.