Mark Rutte withstood the trial by fire as Secretary General last summer during the NATO summit in The Hague. After a strong demand from US President Donald Trump, the allies decided on a breathtaking increase in defense spending. NATO saved. Trump goes home happy. The new ‘SG’ had made a name for himself, although there was criticism of Rutte’s unbridled flattery of Trump.
The next NATO crisis was not long in coming. After a quick military intervention in Venezuela, Trump, drunk on success, turned his sights again last week on Greenland, the autonomous part of Denmark that he has wanted to own for some time. If the US indeed annexes Greenland, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said bluntly, it could well mean the end of NATO. The US then further raised the temperature by not ruling out the use of force.
Greenland thus became Rutte’s second trial by fire. Can he prevent a hostile takeover and pull the alliance back from the brink? American-European cooperation is essential for the security of Europe and of vital importance for Ukraine.
Rutte initially opted for radio silence. He follows the approach of his predecessors and does not comment publicly on conflicts between allies, no matter how high the tension is. Rutte mainly did his work behind the scenes.
On Monday, during a working visit to Croatia, his strategy became clear. In short: European allies must protect Greenland. Last year, NATO already took the first steps in that direction, he said, and now this must be followed up.
One option is to quickly launch a new mission for the security of the Arctic region, of which Greenland is a part. Last year, NATO responded to the destruction of submarine cables in the Baltic Sea with Baltic Sentry and the threat of Russian drones on the eastern flank with Eastern Sentry. Can Trump be appeased by Arctic Sentry?
Ruttian atmosphere
On Tuesday, Rutte was a guest of his liberal friends in the European Parliament for his first public appearance this year. The atmosphere at the conference of Renew, the Liberal group, was cheerfully Ruttian. “Are you the last Secretary General?” asked a parliamentarian from Romania. Rutte easily escaped the friendly trap by laughing that he thinks it is a great job and has no idea how long he will stay.
A Danish delegate tried to pull back the curtain of cheerfulness. “You are the guy who protects us all,” she said. Greenland’s 56,000 residents are “stressed, terrified, beyond worried,” she told him. “What can the alliance do?” She received applause from colleagues, but not many new insights from Rutte.
Rutte is following a Greenland strategy that he started last year, when Trump first threatened the island. He also publicly distanced himself from the controversy between Denmark and the US, but immediately embraced the Arctic region as a new center of gravity for NATO. Of course, Rutte said, NATO must also monitor security in the Arctic region. In other words: NATO, dear President Trump, is also there to remove threats to the US.
NATO, he said Tuesday, met on the area over the summer and again last week. Efforts are underway to respond to the threat and the United Kingdom and Germany have said they are ready to contribute.
Rutte is trying to take the sting out of the Greenland discussion by presenting Greenland as part of an area where seven NATO countries have interests – the eighth Arctic state is Russia. Rutte is trying to transform an American territorial claim into a security issue to which NATO must respond adequately. The question is whether that will work.
Possession is control
Because why does Trump want to annex Greenland? When it comes to raw materials, Greenland is willing to do business, although those raw materials are not easy to extract. And if Trump wanted to station more soldiers in Greenland, no one would stand in his way. There are now 150 Americans stationed there. That is not much if the US really felt threatened by a Russian or Chinese presence.
If raw materials and security cannot explain Trump’s hunger for territory, what can? Trump himself said against The New York Times that you can only really control something when you own it. “I think ownership offers you something that a lease or a treaty cannot.” According to Trump, property is “psychologically necessary for success.”
It has also been suggested that the size of the island would have aroused his desire, although Greenland appears much larger on conventional maps than it actually is.
Viewed in this way, Rutte is trying to counter Trump’s non-rational desire with a rational solution. His extra NATO soldiers and a bravado-presented strategy for the High North then enough to defuse the rapidly escalating crisis between two allies?
The question is also whether Rutte’s proven weapon, flattery, can provide a solution in this situation. Rutte again praised Trump extensively on Tuesday for his contribution to increasing defense spending. “Do you believe that would have been possible without President Trump?” But NATO has a plausible story for increasing defense spending. European countries have neglected their armed forces for decades and with Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine and the return of war in Europe, this is irresponsible.
To better protect the Arctic region against future threats, the annexation of Greenland by the US is not necessary. Flattery is only sustainable if there is some truth in it.
The journalistic principles of NRC