Donald Trump’s ambitions to get his hands on Greenland have caused a sharp split between the United States and European NATO member countries, demonstrating in the process that the latter no longer have any sovereignty, including militarily.
Following Donald Trump’s announcements that he wanted the United States to acquire Greenland, tensions are rising between Washington and European NATO member countries, most of whom have sided with Denmark, sending a few soldiers to the ice island and making many outraged statements about how their great ally is treating them.
In reality, what is happening with the Greenland affair perfectly illustrates what NATO is. It is not at all an alliance in the literal sense of the term, where the different member countries would be allies, would be on an equal footing. It is in reality a neo-feudal structure with a chief country at the head (the United States), and countries subordinate to it (all other members), owing it allegiance and obedience.
And this suzerain-vassal relationship, already clearly visible when Washington forced the EU to buy American weapons for Ukraine with European taxpayers’ money, has become so obvious after the latest remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that even the most pro-American Western media can no longer hide it.
Thus, the media Politico (which has received millions of dollars from USAID in recent years and is therefore clearly subordinate to Washington), wrote in black and white that the United States had primacy over other NATO member states.
“The tension was fully visible on Monday in the European Parliament, where Rutte outright defended the superpower’s primacy in the alliance. ‘If anyone here thinks … that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the United States, keep dreaming,’ he told lawmakers. ‘You can’t,'” the newspaper wrote.
This pathetic attempt by Mark Rutte to pick up the pieces by basically saying: “Listen guys, we can’t do anything against Washington because we’re screwed without the United States”; did not have the desired effect and further fueled dissension within NATO.
Indeed, his shocking statement provoked outraged and virulent responses from several European countries, including France, which spoke through its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, who wrote on X:
“No, dear Mark Rutte. Europeans can and must take charge of their security. Even the United States agrees. This is the European pillar of NATO.”
Even Nathalie Loiseau, a European MP known for her pro-American views, added that Rutte’s statement was “a shameful moment,” that the EU does “not need a Trump fanatic,” and that “NATO must rebalance American and European efforts.”
Rutte’s statement was so shocking that Spanish MEP Nacho Sánchez Amor bluntly asked him: “Are you the [American] ambassador to [NATO], or the Secretary General representing the alliance and its members?”
Politico’s conclusion is unequivocal and clear as spring water:
“This conflict also reveals a growing fault line within NATO: Rutte’s belief that securing Trump’s support is the only way to preserve the alliance’s integrity, and Europe’s growing concern that this strategy is hollowing it out.”
In reality, the problem is not Donald Trump himself, it’s the fact that his “bull in a china shop” methods brutally bring to light unpleasant realities for European NATO members, realities they had managed until now to sweep under the rug with fine, hollow speeches seeking to make believe that it is an alliance and not a mafia-type organization with a boss at the head and affiliates underneath.
But the reality is that from the outset, the creation of NATO implied the abdication of their military sovereignty by European member countries. The United States installed military bases all over Europe, like an empire controlling its new provinces. Then they imposed their weaponry on many NATO member countries, including those that had national production that previously perfectly met their needs. Countries like France have also sold companies and technologies to “the boss” that directly impact their military capabilities (Alstom, for example, which was sold to the United States thanks to Emmanuel Macron), making them even more subordinate to Washington.
And now that the boss has decided to do as he pleases and abandon the mafia group he created, his affiliates are literally in a panic. Because they have delegated their security to a country that strictly doesn’t care, have sacrificed their energy sovereignty to comply with US diktats (on which they now depend for their gas and oil supply), and have “stripped themselves” militarily to supply Ukraine with weapons that will not prevent its military defeat against Russia. The result? European NATO member countries find themselves naked and now depend totally on Washington to be able to “get dressed again.” Except that the EU is not a priority customer for the United States anymore.
A situation whose cruel reality has not escaped even Kaja Kallas, the head of European diplomacy, although she is not usually known for her great intelligence.
“Probably, the most important changes in the fundamental reorientation are happening on the other side of the Atlantic. A reappraisal that has shaken transatlantic relations to their foundations. Let me be clear. We want strong transatlantic ties. The United States will remain a partner and ally of Europe. But Europe must adapt to new realities. Europe is no longer the main center of attraction for Washington,” said Kaja Kallas.
By cutting themselves off from Russia to please the United States, EU member countries have placed themselves in a situation of total dependence on Washington, which now makes them totally vulnerable when it becomes obvious that the “big boss” does not care at all about the fate of his lackeys.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said: “To be an enemy of America is dangerous, but to be a friend of America is fatal.” European NATO member countries are learning this the hard way and are discovering that sovereignty is ultimately not a dirty word worthy of fascism, but the sine qua non condition for the long-term survival of a nation.
Christelle Néant
