This memorandum is based on a recognition shared across broad political circles in the United States and Europe: Western security is under pressure from Russia and China, and the burden-sharing within NATO has for a long time been unbalanced.

The purpose is to demonstrate why the solution is not to weaken NATO or replace the Alliance with EU structures, but rather to strengthen NATO as the primary framework for security in the Arctic, in Greenland and in the Far North.

1. A legitimate American starting point

The criticism voiced by Donald Trump and his administration highlights a real problem: for decades, the United States has borne the main burden of NATO’s military responsibilities, while many European countries have underinvested in defence.

This has weakened the Alliance’s overall deterrence capability vis-à-vis both Russia and China. This recognition must form the basis for future policy.

2. Greenland shows why NATO is necessary

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and has been covered by NATO’s collective security guarantee since 1949. All military planning in the Arctic has taken place within the NATO framework, with the United States as the dominant strategic actor. The US has maintained a permanent military presence in Greenland and has, in practice, defined both the threat assessment and the priorities in the Far North.

A central, but often overlooked, fact is that after the Cold War the United States itself significantly scaled down its military presence in Greenland:
– 1991–1992: the DEW Line system was phased out.
– 1993: the Sondrestrom base was closed.
– 1990s and 2000s: a sharp reduction in staffing and activity at Thule Air Base (now Pituffik).

These were rational American decisions based on the threat assessments of the time, and they were accepted within NATO. European and Danish dispositions naturally followed these signals.

3. NATO – the right tool for American Interests also

If Greenland and the Arctic are today assessed as being insufficiently secured, one strategic conclusion follows logically: NATO must be used more assertively and purposefully – not set aside.

For the United States, NATO provides:
– political legitimacy
– burden-sharing
– binding European participation
– strategic depth in the Far North

The alternative – unilateral American action or bilateral pressure – would in practice increase the US burden rather than reduce it.

4. The EU cannot replace NATO

In Norwegian debate it is sometimes argued that closer European integration, and in the longer term Norwegian EU membership, is the answer to Europe’s security challenges. In my view, this analysis is wrong.

The EU is a political and economic cooperation, not a military alliance with genuine deterrence capability. The EU lacks an integrated command structure, a unified military organisation and – crucially – American strategic weight. The war in Ukraine has shown that it is NATO, and especially the United States, that delivers military power, intelligence and deterrence.

Basing Europe’s security on the EU as an alternative to NATO entails a dangerous illusion of strategic autonomy.

5. Consequences for the Nordic countries

For the Scandinavian kingdoms – Denmark, Norway and Sweden, plus their Nordic neighbours Finland and Iceland, this is decisive. Without the United States in NATO, the Nordics would in reality stand almost alone in the defence of the Scandinavian peninsusla and Finland’s, as well as Svalbard, Iceland and the Far North. The Svalbard Treaty grants Norway sovereignty, but at the same time presupposes cautious and predictable governance – something that in practice requires close allied coordination and an American security guarantee.

EU membership provides no equivalent security guarantee.

6. A Strategic Choice

For the Nordic countries, and for those who seek a stronger West, the conclusion should be clear:
– Press Europe to deliver more, within NATO.
– Use NATO actively to prioritise Greenland and the Arctic.
– Allow the United States to lead, but with allies who actually carry their share of the responsibility.

America First does not mean America Alone.

Conclusion

The question is not whether Greenland and the High North are strategically vital – they are.
The question is whether the United States best secures its interests through a demanding, reformed and strengthened NATO alliance, or by weakening the structure that for 75 years has provided security for both the United States and Europe.

For the United States, Europe and Norway alike, the answer is the same: NATO is not the problem – NATO is the precondition for the solution.