Defencice
When 1,500 American paratroopers quietly packed their gear and departed from a strategic base near the Ukrainian border last October, the silence from Washington was louder than the transport planes. In Romania, a frontline ally, the withdrawal felt less like a routine rotation and more like a crack in the foundation of the world’s most powerful military alliance.
For decades, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) operated on a simple, ironclad promise: an attack on one is an attack on all. But as defence ministers prepare to gather in Brussels on 12 February, that certainty is being replaced by a profound sense of trepidation. A toxic cocktail of territorial disputes, disparaging rhetoric, and shifting American priorities has left the alliance’s “Article 5” collective defence guarantee looking increasingly fragile.
The central crisis facing NATO today is no longer just about budgets or hardware, but about the erosion of trust. While European allies and Canada are pumping billions into their militaries to counter Russian aggression, the political rift between Washington and its partners—exemplified by renewed American interest in acquiring Greenland—has reached a point where Moscow now openly questions the West’s resolve to act as a unified front.
The Greenland Gambit and the Erosion of Article 5
The most visible sign of this “transatlantic chill” is the recurring tension over Greenland. What began as a dismissed suggestion by President Donald Trump has evolved into a persistent diplomatic wound. Though the Danish territory remains self-governing, the rhetoric surrounding its potential “acquisition” by the United States has struck at the heart of NATO’s sovereign equality principle.
“This episode is significant because it crossed an invisible line,” says Sophia Besch, a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe. In a recent analysis of the Greenland crisis, Besch argued that the breach weakens the alliance permanently, even without the use of force or sanctions. The implication that a senior partner might coerce a smaller ally into ceding territory undermines the very rules-based order the alliance was built to protect. This unpredictability is echoed in the US Senate, where Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lisa Murkowski recently warned that suggesting the US might seize or coerce the sale of allied territory sends a message of instability that gives adversaries exactly what they want: proof that democratic alliances are brittle.
Financial Sovereignty and the 5% GDP Defence Pivot
In a desperate bid to “Trump-proof” their security, European nations and Canada have radically altered their fiscal trajectories. In July 2025, member states agreed to a landmark surge in spending, pledging to invest 5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) into defence and security-linked projects. By 2035, the alliance aims for financial parity, with non-US members spending 3.5% of GDP on core military functions alongside an additional 1.5% earmarked for security-adjacent infrastructure. This secondary investment focuses on modernising strategic bridges to support heavy armour transport, upgrading deep-water ports for rapid reinforcement, and hardening civilian airports against the rising threat of cyber-sabotage.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has publicly praised these efforts, crediting the pressure from Washington for making the alliance stronger than ever. However, behind the scenes, diplomats suggest Rutte’s flattery is a survival tactic. His conspicuous silence on the Greenland dispute highlights the delicate balancing act required to keep the US at the table while European partners grapple with the reality of a shifting American commitment.
Moscow’s Watchful Eye on the Deep Crisis
The internal friction has not escaped the Kremlin’s notice. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently described the situation as a “major disorder in Europe,” noting that Moscow is watching the cracks with keen interest. For the Russian leadership, NATO’s ability to deter a wider war depends entirely on the conviction that the US will retaliate if the conflict spreads beyond Ukraine. Lavrov told reporters that it was previously difficult to imagine NATO members being at such odds over territory, suggesting that the current rift signals a deep crisis within the organisation.
This perceived weakness coincides with a surge in Russian hybrid activity across Europe. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned this week that Russia remains a major long-term security threat, citing a wave of cyber-attacks on critical energy grids, mysterious drone flights over military bases, and the physical sabotage of subsea infrastructure. As US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth prepares to send his deputy to the upcoming ministerial meeting, questions about Washington’s “Pivot to the Arctic” and its commitment to European soil continue to mount.
A Fragile Edifice of Deterrence
The looming February 12 meeting is expected to focus heavily on the security of the High North, where Greenland sits as a strategic gateway. Yet, without a clear reaffirmation of US troop levels in Europe, the edifice of deterrence remains at risk. A report from the EU Institute for Security Studies warns that adversaries are beginning to believe they can test, sabotage, and escalate without triggering a unified response.
In his year-end address, Mark Rutte reminded the alliance of the stakes, noting that Russia has brought large-scale war back to the continent on a scale not seen since the days of “our grandfathers or great-grandfathers.” Whether the alliance can move past the rhetoric of real estate and return to the business of collective security remains the defining question of 2026. For now, the transatlantic rift serves as a reminder that the greatest threat to NATO may not be the enemy at the gates, but the lack of confidence among those standing behind them.
