Will Greenland be the Death of NATO?

Dear Reader,

Happy Tuesday.

Today is Tuesday, January 20th, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about Greenland — because this is one of those issues that looks strange on the surface, but becomes very serious once you understand what’s really at stake.

Here at Behind the Markets, we spend a lot of time on geopolitics, defense, and long-term strategic competition. Greenland sits right at the intersection of all three.

We’ve been talking for years about what’s happening in the Arctic. The ice is melting. Shipping routes are opening. Military positioning is changing. And if anyone doubts climate change is real, all they need to do is look at what the Chinese and Russian militaries are doing up there.

Now let’s talk about why Greenland matters.

This is fundamentally about missile defense.

When people imagine a missile attack, they picture something flying across the globe. That’s not how it works. The shortest path between Russia or China and the United States is over the top of the world — through the Arctic.

Right now, the concept of mutually assured destruction holds because missiles launched from each side would arrive at roughly the same time. No one has a clean first-strike advantage.

But if China or Russia were able to position assets in the Arctic — particularly near Greenland — that changes the equation. Missiles launched from there would reach the U.S. faster, potentially giving them a first-strike capability.

That’s unacceptable. No country can live permanently with a gun to its head.

So the real question isn’t whether Greenland matters to U.S. national security.

It absolutely does.

The real question is how we secure it — and whether the current approach actually strengthens our position.

Denmark has said it’s willing to allow expanded U.S. military access to Greenland. President Trump’s response has essentially been: not good enough. 

He wants ownership.

And I understand the logic.

If Greenland remains under Danish sovereignty, and if China were ever to pressure or knock Denmark out in a broader conflict, the U.S. could find itself pushed off Greenland anyway. From that perspective, ownership solves the problem permanently.

But that solution opens up another, much bigger issue: NATO.

This is where things get dangerous.

Let me quote Sun Tzu for a moment:

“If an enemy has alliances, the problem is grave and the enemy’s position is strong.

If he has no alliances, the problem is minor and the enemy’s position is weak.”

Throughout history, smart strategists — Caesar, Napoleon, Bismarck — all understood this.

When facing a powerful adversary with strong alliances, you don’t attack them head-on. You try to fracture their alliances first.

That has been China’s strategy for years.

They’ve used massive investments, Belt and Road projects, and economic leverage to pull countries away from Western alliances. Russia tried something similar with German energy dependence.

NATO, from China’s perspective, is terrifying.

It’s not one country. It’s a pack. And a pack can take down even a much stronger opponent.

That’s why this matters.

Nobody disputes that Greenland is strategically vital. The concern is that in pursuing it aggressively, we risk weakening the very alliance system that makes us strong.

You don’t have to formally leave NATO to undermine it. You just have to act like it doesn’t matter.

It’s like a marriage. You don’t need to say you’re leaving — you just need to behave in a way that makes the other person feel irrelevant. Eventually, they walk.

If NATO fractures, we lose access not just to military cooperation, but to the productive capacity of the entire alliance — Germany, France, the U.K., Denmark, and others. That matters enormously in any large-scale conflict.

So the dilemma is real:

Is Greenland so critical that it’s worth risking long-term alliance damage?

Or is there a way to secure Greenland and preserve NATO?

That distinction — solving short-term problems without destroying long-term advantages — is the difference between a good leader and a great one.

A good leader fixes today’s problem.

A great leader fixes today’s problem without creating a bigger one tomorrow.

I’m not saying this story is finished. Something could change tomorrow that alters how I see it. As always, you play the ball where it is, not where you want it to be.

But from where things stand right now, attacking our own alliance structure feels counterproductive to national security, not supportive of it.

Our strength has always come from our alliances.

And as Sun Tzu reminds us — that’s the whole game.

That’s all I have for today.

Have a great day.

I’ll see you tomorrow.

“The Buck Stops Here,”