NATO deploys ‘Arctic Sentry’ to Greenland, to appease or perhaps distract Trump

NATO is officially launching its new “Arctic Sentry” mission in Greenland, but the move seems less about deterring Russia and more about keeping President Trump happy. This major new effort to beef up the alliance’s presence in the High North is widely seen by diplomats and experts as a massive political rebranding exercise.

This mission is in response to heavy U.S. pressure, largely motivated by Trump’s repeated threats to annex the Danish territory. For many European countries, the president’s campaign to acquire Greenland was a breaking point, cementing their view that the U.S. is becoming a permanently unreliable ally.

According to Politico, NATO diplomats and officials have admitted that while the alliance is framing the new mission as critical, the effort is primarily driven by political optics rather than any immediate military necessity. They’re worried that failing to mollify Trump on the Greenland issue could be disastrous for the entire alliance.

This is going to inflate his ego further

In public, however, the tone is strictly military. NATO chief Mark Rutte told reporters on Wednesday that the move is essential. He stated, “In the face of Russia’s increased military activity and China’s growing interest in the high north it was crucial that we do more.” Despite the official line, most experts believe the security fears cited by Washington are largely overblown. They argue NATO is capable of handling any perceived threat from Russia.

Washington has cited various future threats, including Russia’s large icebreaker fleet, the development of hypersonic missiles that might fly over Greenland, and growing collaboration between Russia and China. But experts dismiss these fears. One NATO diplomat acknowledged that the initiative has a clear “symbolic and communications aspect to it,” adding that the threat is “more hypothetical than real.”

Even U.S. military analysts agree there isn’t a capability gap, stating that it is just a “communication gap.” They point out that the U.S. can easily dispatch “thousands” of troops to Greenland from Alaska “within 12 to 24 hours.” Furthermore, Russia’s military strength in the region has actually decreased significantly since its war in Ukraine began. Meanwhile, NATO allies are all investing in new technology and equipment.

Given this reality, military experts like Ståle Ulriksen from the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy called an additional Arctic mission focused on Greenland “a bit pointless.” For allies, the calculation is simple: this political theater is the price of admission. One NATO diplomat admitted that while this might not be “the best way to use the limited resources we have,” the alternative is “letting the alliance disintegrate.”

As another diplomat summarized the trade-off, “If the price to pay is sending two ships to Greenland and 500 troops to do occasional joint exercises, then perhaps it’s worth it.” It seems we’re launching a major mission just to ensure the alliance stays intact, which is a wild political dynamic.