Roger-Luc Chayer (Photo : John Thys / AFP)
Is Trump Ready to Invade Greenland, a NATO-Protected Territory?
The President of the United States, Donald Trump, is he on the verge of ordering the invasion of Greenland, despite the fact that this autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark is a member of NATO and thus, in theory, protected by all Alliance countries, including the United States itself?
Just three days after the attack on Venezuela and the arrest of its president, Nicolás Maduro, questions are multiplying. So much so that French President Emmanuel Macron has convened today in Paris the allies of the Coalition of Volunteers to discuss the matter. Two U.S. representatives will attend, including Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law.
What Is the Coalition of Volunteers?
According to Wikipedia, the Coalition of Volunteers is an alliance contributing to the implementation of a four-point plan presented by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion, following a summit that brought together 18 world leaders in London. Announced at the London summit on Ukraine on March 2, 2025, the initiative aims to strengthen European support for Kyiv amid political instability marked by shifts in U.S. policy. It also seeks to establish a framework for lasting peace to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and, more broadly, the Russo-Ukrainian war. The coalition’s first meeting took place on April 10, 2025, at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
Members of the Coalition of Volunteers
Today, the coalition includes between 31 and 35 countries, mainly European, with some extra-European partners. It was formed around a core led jointly by France and the United Kingdom, who display strong political commitment. At this stage, Paris and London are the only countries publicly considering deploying European troops as part of a future “reassurance force” in Ukraine, though no operational arrangement has yet been formalized.
Germany actively participates in discussions and contemplates military or security contributions in the form of guarantees, while Sweden has expressed openness to participating in a joint force. Canada is also a key player, providing significant diplomatic and material support. Although a coalition member, Italy remains reluctant to send troops without a clear international mandate. Austria, Belgium, and several Baltic, Nordic, and Central European countries also participate. External partners like Australia and New Zealand are noted for logistical and training roles. Ukraine itself is a participant and beneficiary at coordination summits. At the January 2026 Paris summit, 35 countries were represented, with the United States attending in person for the first time via emissaries.
Varied Contributions Within the Coalition
Member contributions differ based on capacities and strategic priorities. Beyond the troop deployment scenarios raised by Paris and London, several countries—including Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Canada—favor indirect security guarantees such as providing bases, training Ukrainian forces, sending equipment, or offering logistical support. The majority focus on diplomatic and financial support, reinforcing sanctions against Russia, and coordinating reconstruction projects. Simultaneously, some states, notably Canada, have continued delivering substantial bilateral military and financial aid to Ukraine.
NATO Article 5 and a Possible U.S. Attack on Greenland
Article 5 of NATO is the Alliance’s collective defense clause. Simply put, it states that if a member country is attacked, that attack is considered an attack against all members. Members then commit to assist the attacked country by means they deem appropriate—military, logistical, political, or otherwise.
This article does not automatically trigger a global war but mandates mandatory solidarity among allies. Each state is free to choose how to provide support, but the principle is clear: no member should stand alone against aggression. Since NATO’s founding, Article 5 has been invoked only once, after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Risks of a U.S. Attack on a NATO Member
It would be absurd for the United States to attack a NATO member, an act that would force other countries to invoke Article 5 and potentially oppose Washington. Such a move by Donald Trump would trigger a major global military crisis, with Russia, China, and India looming in the background. This scenario would send a worrying signal that the U.S. might effectively or legally withdraw from NATO’s collective solidarity framework.
Trump: A President Capable of Surprise Attacks
Donald Trump has shown he could act decisively unless restrained by counterpowers such as Congress. He launched an attack on Venezuela under the pretext of an arrest warrant, causing many military and civilian casualties. He now claims to be days away from offensives against Colombia, Cuba, and Iran, with no apparent force able or willing to stop him so far.
The Impossible Management of Article 5 if the U.S. Attacked Greenland
If the United States attacked Greenland, a NATO member, the Alliance would face an unprecedented dilemma. Article 5 provides for a collective response in case of attack, but here the aggressor would be a leading member itself. This contradiction would pose a massive challenge for other members, who would need to decide if the act breaches the Alliance. Instead of an immediate military response, a strong political, economic, and diplomatic reply would likely be favored. Article 5 was never designed for internal aggression, and no clear procedure exists to handle such a case. This gap could paralyze the Alliance and threaten its cohesion, with some countries questioning their participation, risking a deep crisis or strategic realignment.
Trump and the Destruction of LGBT Communities Worldwide
In 2025, Donald Trump proved he could destroy what he rejects, particularly international LGBT communities. Through his decisions and influence, he fostered an environment of rejection and intolerance, fueling homophobic discourse in several countries. His support for certain conservative regimes hardened laws and discriminatory practices, worsening conditions for LGBT people globally. This regression had severe consequences on their rights, safety, and recognition. The U.S. Supreme Court intervened in LGBT rights cases, particularly regarding employment and discrimination, affirming that federal law protects LGBT people from being fired or harassed due to sexual orientation or gender identity, contradicting some of Trump’s decrees.
ADVERTISING
