NATO’s mortal wound

Donald Trump has just announced punitive tariffs against Denmark, the UK, France, Germany and a swathe of European allies, explicitly tying their removal to the “complete and total purchase of Greenland” by the United States. He has framed this as a national security imperative, accused allies of endangering global peace, and threatened escalating economic punishment until they comply.

If this stands, NATO as we have known it is finished.

This isn’t bluster. It’s not theatre or a negotiating tactic that can be brushed off as Trump being Trump. It’s open use of economic coercion against treaty allies to extract territorial concessions. That crosses a line that alliances don’t recover from.

NATO is built on a simple premise: collective security among sovereign equals. Not tribute. Not extortion. Not “do what we say or we will punish you”. The moment a leading power uses sanctions and tariffs against its own allies to force compliance on territorial issues, the alliance ceases to be a viable security pact. That’s what has just happened!

Sanctions against allies, silence on adversaries

The most disturbing feature of this announcement isn’t just the threat to Denmark and Greenland. It is the strategic inversion it reveals.

At a moment when the Kremlin continues its war of aggression in Ukraine, when Russian coercion of neighbours remains the central security challenge in Europe, the US has chosen to target democratic NATO allies instead. Not Russia. Not China. Denmark. Norway. Sweden. Germany. France. The United Kingdom. The Netherlands. Finland.

And Trump’s language matters. He claims these countries have “put global peace at risk” by supporting Denmark and Greenland. He asserts that only the US, under his personal leadership, can secure this “sacred piece of land”. He presents democratic European allies not as partners, but as reckless actors who must be disciplined for their own good. It’s nasty, bullying. Strongman behaviour.

The idea that a US president can impose economic punishment until a deal is struck for the “complete and total purchase” of an ally’s territory isn’t security policy. It is coercion.

And it sends a chilling message to every US ally: your sovereignty is conditional.

What this means for Australia

Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese have been embarrassingly silent on Greenland. But now the question is unavoidable: will Australia stand with our European partners when the US breaks the rules, or will we look away to preserve favour and stay in Trump’s good books?

It’s tempting to reduce this to just Trump and his temperament. That is a mistake.

This is about bullying and the erosion of constraint. About the people and system around Trump being unwilling to say no. About a new US that’s rogue and allows personal grievance and transactional thinking to override alliance commitments.

When allies become targets, when sanctions replace diplomacy, and when sovereignty is treated as negotiable under pressure, we’re no longer talking about alliance management. We are talking about the collapse of the post-war security order.

NATO may not be formally dead yet. But if this stands, it has suffered a mortal wound.

And the rest of us, including Australia, need to start acting accordingly.