CDS says Greenland within NATO area of responsibility

The UK’s Chief of the Defence Staff has said that Greenland sits within NATO’s overall area of responsibility, amid growing parliamentary scrutiny of alliance commitments in the High North and questions over how stretched Britain’s armed forces have become.

Giving evidence to the Defence Select Committee, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton was asked about contingency planning linked to Greenland, following public comments by US officials framing the territory as a national security priority. MPs raised concerns that tensions around Greenland’s future position could have wider implications for NATO cohesion.

Knighton told the committee that he had not been involved in any plans to directly defend Greenland, but stressed that the territory’s status within the alliance was clear from a military perspective. “Greenland is part of Denmark, which is part of NATO, which is part of our overall NATO area of responsibility,” he said, adding that NATO provided “an impeccable security guarantee” for member nations.

He acknowledged awareness of US concerns about Greenland’s security, particularly in relation to Russia and China, but emphasised that NATO structures already accounted for the territory within existing alliance responsibilities. From a military standpoint, he said, Greenland should be viewed through the same lens as other parts of the NATO area, with political questions remaining separate from defence planning.

The exchange came as MPs pressed senior defence figures on whether expanding commitments linked to Ukraine, NATO reassurance missions, and potential new deployments were creating unacceptable risks elsewhere. Members cited ongoing UK commitments in Estonia, plans to reinforce Finland, and discussions around a so-called coalition of the willing in support of Ukraine.

Mike Martin MP warned that while demands on the armed forces were increasing, the military itself had become smaller, with persistent funding gaps acknowledged by government. Referring to figures previously discussed for possible deployments, he questioned where risk would ultimately be absorbed if further commitments were made. “Where specifically is the risk?” he asked, pointing to the limits of deployable army strength.

Knighton responded by setting out the broader strategic challenge facing the alliance, linking security guarantees for Ukraine with NATO’s collective defence posture. He referred to recent agreements reached in Paris between the UK, France and Ukraine, describing them as “remarkable”, and pointed to what he characterised as unusually strong commitments from the United States.

While declining to frame Greenland as a distinct operational problem, Knighton’s comments nonetheless underline how developments in the Arctic and High North are increasingly being discussed within the same strategic conversation as Ukraine, Eastern Europe and NATO’s northern flank. The focus, however, remained on alliance mechanisms rather than national claims or unilateral defence responsibilities.

The evidence session also highlighted the tension between political signalling and military capacity. MPs repeatedly returned to the question of whether the UK could continue to meet expanding alliance expectations without further trade-offs, particularly as the armed forces balance deterrence, reassurance and warfighting readiness across multiple theatres.

Knighton did not suggest that Greenland required new or separate planning by the UK, instead reinforcing the view that existing NATO frameworks remained sufficient. Any changes, he implied, would be driven by political decisions at alliance level rather than by unilateral military action.