Economically, the fallout would
devastate the US as the European Union and NATO nations retaliate in response
to American aggression . . . including dumping holdings of US debt . . .
As Canadians, deeply invested in the stability of our continent and the alliances that have protected it for generations, we should view the escalating American rhetoric around annexing Greenland with profound alarm. In early 2026, President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that the United States must control this Danish territory “one way or another” for national security reasons have pushed transatlantic relations to a breaking point. If the US were to proceed with forceful annexation, whether through military action or overwhelming economic coercion, it would constitute an unprecedented act of aggression against a fellow NATO member. Rather than strengthening the United States it would represent geopolitical suicide, dismantling the post-World War Two international order that has prevented major wars among major global powers and ensured relative global peace.
The bedrock of this order is NATO, founded in 1949 on the principle of collective defence. Article 5 declares that an armed attack against one ally is considered an attack against all. By moving against Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark fully covered by NATO’s guarantees, the US would trigger this clause against itself. Such a betrayal would render the alliance untenable overnight. European leaders, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, have explicitly warned that an attack on Greenland would spell the end of NATO. The organization that has deterred Soviet and then Russian aggression for 75 years would collapse, forcing Europe to accelerate independent rearmament and seek new security arrangements that exclude the former guarantor. This fracture would not only embolden adversaries like Russia and China in the Arctic but also leave North America more vulnerable, as shared defense structures collapse.
Militarily, the consequences for the United States would be swift and severe. Europe currently hosts numerous key US installations—over 30 military bases and additional sites—essential for projecting power into Eurasia, the Middle East, and Africa. Facilities like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Aviano in Italy, and RAF Lakenheath in the UK form the backbone of American forward presence. In retaliation for an attack on a NATO partner, European governments would demand—and likely enforce—the closure of these bases, evicting US forces from soil they helped defend since 1945. The US would retreat to a more isolated posture, losing critical logistical advantages and diminishing its global reach. Recent European deployments of small contingents to Greenland for joint exercises with Denmark already signal a shift toward bolstering Arctic defences without heavy US reliance.
Economically, the fallout would devastate the US as the European Union and NATO nations retaliate in response to American aggression and restrict American products entering the European market. The EU could impose comprehensive sanctions, including dumping holdings of US debt, divesting from dollar reserves, and targeting American corporations operating on the continent. This would undermine the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency, sparking a severe devaluation, rampant US inflation, and a potential stock market collapse far exceeding more recent crises. American companies—tech giants, automakers, and consumer brands—could face asset seizures, market bans, or forced divestitures, erasing trillions in value. Aviation restrictions might ground Boeing aircraft and bar US carriers from European airspace, severing transatlantic supply chains. The result would be a rapid de-globalization that isolates the American economy from its wealthiest trading partners and severely weakens it, contrary to the promises Donald Trump made to American voters.
Diplomatic and cultural isolation would compound the damage. International sporting bodies, drawing parallels to Russia’s exclusion following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, would likely suspend the US from events like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup competitions. Team USA would be absent from global stages, treated as a pariah akin to Russia. Visa-free travel to Europe would end abruptly, complicating movement for Americans and turning the US passport into a barrier rather than an asset. This ostracism would be long-term because trust, once shattered by invading a democratic ally, does not easily recover. Europe would pivot to independent defence architectures, alternative financial systems, and alliances that sideline the US, preserving the broader Western framework without American leadership.
The consequences for Canada would be devastating, given our deep and longstanding economic entanglement with the United States. Bilateral trade between the two countries routinely surpasses a trillion dollars annually (combining goods and services), with the US serving as the destination for the overwhelming majority of Canadian exports. These exports account for a substantial portion of our economy—often estimated at around 17-20% of GDP in recent years. If the US economy were to collapse under the weight of severe European sanctions and diplomatic isolation, the fallout for Canada would be swift and severe with widespread job losses across interconnected industries, fractured supply chains that have evolved over decades, and intensified recessionary forces rippling through every region of the country.
In this scenario Canada would suddenly find itself caught in an excruciating dilemma—torn between our largest and most vital trading partner on one side, and our longstanding European allies on the other. In a world order turned upside down by such a crisis, Ottawa would face an unavoidable choice of allegiances. In all likelihood, Canada would ultimately side with Europe, this alignment reflecting a commitment to upholding international law and norms, as well as a strategic imperative to preserve credibility within the remnants of NATO and the broader network of global institutions. Standing firmly against any illegal annexation would help safeguard Canada’s reputation as a principled middle power, even in the face of short-term economic pain.
However, this choice carries grave risks. Canada’s Arctic expanse holds vast energy reserves and critical minerals essential for green technologies. In addition, this country holds approximately 20% of the world’s freshwater reserves—a resource increasingly coveted by the US as the American US southwest continues to grapple with a megadrought ongoing since 2000, the worst in over a millennium. If the US justifies seizing Greenland for strategic and resource needs, similar logic could cause Trump to say that the US needs Canada’s north for its strategic and economic importance as well.
To protect Canadian sovereignty in the face of such uncertainties, Canada could seek enhanced European military support—including troop deployments or joint Arctic patrols on Canadian territory. Europe, recognizing Canada as a key partner in preventing a broader transatlantic fracture, would likely respond with firm commitment by deepening security ties through established frameworks, investing in shared infrastructure, diversifying trade to lessen reliance on the US, and extending defensive assurances via EU mutual assistance mechanisms beyond NATO. Recent European troop deployments to Greenland already signal a readiness to act decisively in the Arctic, and extending comparable solidarity to Canada would strengthen collective resilience across the region.
In the end, any US annexation of Greenland would sacrifice an eight-decade alliance and the shared economic prosperity forged through cooperation, all for short-term territorial advantage. From Canada’s vantage point, this course promises not greater strength but mutual decline, where a once-dominant superpower drifts into isolation, while its former allies realign to sustain patterns of economic partnership and collective defence without American involvement. To avoid being caught in the crossfire, Canada must forge closer coordination with Europe and secure robust allied backing. The survival of the post-war international order ultimately hinges on firmly rejecting aggression—even from the US—before it becomes irreversible.
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
Militarily, the consequences for the United States would be swift and severe. Europe currently hosts numerous key US installations—over 30 military bases and additional sites—essential for projecting power into Eurasia, the Middle East, and Africa. Facilities like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Aviano in Italy, and RAF Lakenheath in the UK form the backbone of American forward presence. In retaliation for an attack on a NATO partner, European governments would demand—and likely enforce—the closure of these bases, evicting US forces from soil they helped defend since 1945. The US would retreat to a more isolated posture, losing critical logistical advantages and diminishing its global reach. Recent European deployments of small contingents to Greenland for joint exercises with Denmark already signal a shift toward bolstering Arctic defences without heavy US reliance.
Economically, the fallout would devastate the US as the European Union and NATO nations retaliate in response to American aggression and restrict American products entering the European market. The EU could impose comprehensive sanctions, including dumping holdings of US debt, divesting from dollar reserves, and targeting American corporations operating on the continent. This would undermine the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency, sparking a severe devaluation, rampant US inflation, and a potential stock market collapse far exceeding more recent crises. American companies—tech giants, automakers, and consumer brands—could face asset seizures, market bans, or forced divestitures, erasing trillions in value. Aviation restrictions might ground Boeing aircraft and bar US carriers from European airspace, severing transatlantic supply chains. The result would be a rapid de-globalization that isolates the American economy from its wealthiest trading partners and severely weakens it, contrary to the promises Donald Trump made to American voters.
Diplomatic and cultural isolation would compound the damage. International sporting bodies, drawing parallels to Russia’s exclusion following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, would likely suspend the US from events like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup competitions. Team USA would be absent from global stages, treated as a pariah akin to Russia. Visa-free travel to Europe would end abruptly, complicating movement for Americans and turning the US passport into a barrier rather than an asset. This ostracism would be long-term because trust, once shattered by invading a democratic ally, does not easily recover. Europe would pivot to independent defence architectures, alternative financial systems, and alliances that sideline the US, preserving the broader Western framework without American leadership.
The consequences for Canada would be devastating, given our deep and longstanding economic entanglement with the United States. Bilateral trade between the two countries routinely surpasses a trillion dollars annually (combining goods and services), with the US serving as the destination for the overwhelming majority of Canadian exports. These exports account for a substantial portion of our economy—often estimated at around 17-20% of GDP in recent years. If the US economy were to collapse under the weight of severe European sanctions and diplomatic isolation, the fallout for Canada would be swift and severe with widespread job losses across interconnected industries, fractured supply chains that have evolved over decades, and intensified recessionary forces rippling through every region of the country.
In this scenario Canada would suddenly find itself caught in an excruciating dilemma—torn between our largest and most vital trading partner on one side, and our longstanding European allies on the other. In a world order turned upside down by such a crisis, Ottawa would face an unavoidable choice of allegiances. In all likelihood, Canada would ultimately side with Europe, this alignment reflecting a commitment to upholding international law and norms, as well as a strategic imperative to preserve credibility within the remnants of NATO and the broader network of global institutions. Standing firmly against any illegal annexation would help safeguard Canada’s reputation as a principled middle power, even in the face of short-term economic pain.
However, this choice carries grave risks. Canada’s Arctic expanse holds vast energy reserves and critical minerals essential for green technologies. In addition, this country holds approximately 20% of the world’s freshwater reserves—a resource increasingly coveted by the US as the American US southwest continues to grapple with a megadrought ongoing since 2000, the worst in over a millennium. If the US justifies seizing Greenland for strategic and resource needs, similar logic could cause Trump to say that the US needs Canada’s north for its strategic and economic importance as well.
To protect Canadian sovereignty in the face of such uncertainties, Canada could seek enhanced European military support—including troop deployments or joint Arctic patrols on Canadian territory. Europe, recognizing Canada as a key partner in preventing a broader transatlantic fracture, would likely respond with firm commitment by deepening security ties through established frameworks, investing in shared infrastructure, diversifying trade to lessen reliance on the US, and extending defensive assurances via EU mutual assistance mechanisms beyond NATO. Recent European troop deployments to Greenland already signal a readiness to act decisively in the Arctic, and extending comparable solidarity to Canada would strengthen collective resilience across the region.
In the end, any US annexation of Greenland would sacrifice an eight-decade alliance and the shared economic prosperity forged through cooperation, all for short-term territorial advantage. From Canada’s vantage point, this course promises not greater strength but mutual decline, where a once-dominant superpower drifts into isolation, while its former allies realign to sustain patterns of economic partnership and collective defence without American involvement. To avoid being caught in the crossfire, Canada must forge closer coordination with Europe and secure robust allied backing. The survival of the post-war international order ultimately hinges on firmly rejecting aggression—even from the US—before it becomes irreversible.
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment