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.
The UK in the past had several units “artic” trained the RMs had 45, and 42 along with elements of 29 and 59 Cdo’s also the Army use to have at least 1 one the Parachute battalions artic trained and elements of the SF along with the M&AW carder who could be deployed at short notice. But now we only have 45 Cdo along with the M&AW carder who regally train in Norway. As the “Northern” area of Natos responsibility includes Greenland Nato should have a permanent base on the island use for all year round for training along with “surge deployments” but for that to happen we would have to depend on our Scandinavian colleges for the first few years until the rest of Nato gets back up to speed with Mountain and artic warfare. But what ever we do we need to do it fast before Tump decided to brake Nato by annexing Greenland.
NATO already has a permanent base there and Greenland is awful for training. Logistically it’s a nightmare to operate in which is the main reason the US pulled forces back. Sticking people there permanently will cripple morale.
It’s our job to guard Norway and it’s America, Canada and Denmarks to look after Greenland. We should not go around wasting precious resources because Donald Trump wants something to divert attention from the Epstein files. If America wants to “invade” then let it under its 1951 Treaty then re write that treaty with the next administration.
I would agree Jim with what you said and having been based in Norway for several 3 month periods over the winter months my self would also agree it is demoralizing, but if Nato is to out last Trump then we must start heading him off at the pass and by setting up a permanent “Nato” base (the one there at the moment is an American base) we would at least be seen to be proactive to the few American senators that still have half a brain.
Both of you have very valid points but no one anticipated this Trump scenario (perhaps they should have) and in hindsight your proposal Steven would have been the logical solution to this present crisis, certainly making any US invasion a far greater risk for Trump. I guess it would have been the Scandis who would have provided the obvious units to lead and firm the bulk part of such a permanent presence but of course Finland and Sweden were not NATO members till recently and more generally populations are small and focused and prioritised on defence of their own borders against Russia, even our arctic priority was to support them and the seas around Greenland were almost entirely un-sailable. Global warming has pivoted both the dangers (though much exaggerated) and magnified the rhetoric which in reality is about exploiting the economic opportunities. The US has very little Arctic capability, indeed a fraction of that of Canada and Europe and has only one aging major ice breaker so the idea that they will be defending Greenland is laughable, in reality it would likely physically weaken any potential defence as it does not control the major forces or assets able to be exploited. But then we know it’s all about threat that he exercises control through not boots or assets on the ground. But that works already with Greenland with or without actual ownership through NATO so where any such economic acquisition leaves NATO is anyone’s guess but much weaker and thus the threat to the US eventually greater, its influence in the World massively weaker, even if the leaders are too inward looking to accept it or is personal wealth generation simply the overriding factor, I suspect it is.
As suggested Americans aren’t cut out to be arctic warriors so militarily there will be little to no effort to expand the military there beyond grandiose golden schemes that never get off the drawing board and some poor so and sos (probably ICE 😂) to keep the natives docile. What the Western world does when they start brutalising or even shooting locals would be a serious test for us all. Seeing how ICE have been abusing native Americans with Mexican names because they don’t look American would perhaps be all thee evidence one needs.
I do believe that if we (the other members of Nato) can hold out till the American mid-terms then Trump will lose a lot of his bite but November is a long way off and as an out sider it looks as though America is being controlled by a rabid dog who is infecting his whole pack. The idea of rational thourght seems to be an alien concept in America these days. It dose not help when the current UK government is pretending to increase defence expenditure but in reality still cutting it in the belief that Trump and his ideas will go away when he dose, then they can go back to living under the American Umbrella. Them days have gone and the German’s have woken up to that fact, the French are waking up. It is now down to us (the UK) to accept the fact that America propping us up is a thing of the past. If we look at Poland now spending approximatly 7% of GDP we should all be waking up as they have lived under the Russian jack book so understand what is coming once/if Putin defeats Ukraine.
I think the mid-terms might play a large part even if the US troops go in earlier. The US President can’t legally start a war unless it’s an emergency (Trump can make up any olf guff to fulfil that condition) and only then for 6 months without Congressional approval. If he doesn’t get Congress to say yes, the troops have to be withdrawn within the following three months. So if US troops went in opposed in February, they’d all have to come out by November unless Congress rubber stamps it. If the troops still don’t come out the President could be impeached (again). Those will be political decisions in the run up to mid-terms and polling data will be scrutinised.
Of course US troops can go into Greenland under current agreements, so muddying the waters is possible and there would have to be real opposition within Greenland to trigger complaints in the US Congress. Trump could say it’s not a war and the US troops ringing the Nuuk Inatsisartut are there under existing treaty agreements and they are all pointing their guns at the Parliamentary Speaker purely coincidentally. That’s one reason why I think there will be bullets fired if things continue towards a violent seizure of sovereignty. As I recall that’s what happened in the Falklands with a brief fight before the initial surrender.
I fear that Trump will lose a lot less of his bite than you hope. While Trump is definitely a problem, I don’t think he’s the true source of the movement that is subsuming America.
If we are not careful the click bate media and a few nut jobs in the Trump administration/MAGA are going to put us in a position of European NATO forces opening fire on US forces.
God only knows what happens when that day comes.
We are potentially on the cusp of seeing two of the last major authoritarian regimes collapse (Russia and Iran) and a great victory for the democratic order yet at the same time we risk the foundation stone of that democratic world order being irrevocably destroyed over nothing.
Fact is Donald Trump is allowed to send as many soldiers to Greenland as he wants(under Danish law). Fact is only a 60 member vote in the US senate can annex US territory.
Everything else is tweets and nonsense.
Hopefully cooler heads prevail in the US military however the last thing we should start doing is shooting at some poor US kid sent to a ball of ice that he legally can’t claim and that the next US president will return.
I’m not so confident that the next president will give it back they’ve been looking at Greenland a long time.
I agree it’s not a given, there will be a big stand about not Anne ing it (even senate Republicans are coming out against it) but after a fait accompli the idea of humiliating themselves by restoring the status quo might be difficult for even a willing President to put his neck on the line for. This far right extremist movement in the US isn’t simply going to go away and priorities will be about trying to minimise its influence and rebuilding democratic structures so a free Greenland might be kicked down the road with promises that never perhaps arrive and low and behold it’s importance dissolves with some mashed up compromise of mock independence at best. The Danish connection will certainly be broken.
More generally we toe a difficult line. We may have to bite our tongues and placate Trumps ego but this is very dangerous the longer it goes on, it gives him a sense he is Emperor of the Western World, that we won’t dare confront him, that he can dictate anything to anyone and this will appeal to his MAGA base and provide the only chance he and his acolytes to stay in power and remotely powerful internally to be able to exercise that power and through that control all our futures, be it him in the short term or whatever tyrant he would then be able to ensure keeps him out of jail in the future and continue his legacy. If that happens then either Europe et al become little more from exploited colonies stripped of all wealth to feed our US Masters lust for economic growth at our expense or we do stand up and risk serious conflict developing. A truly dystopian future if we end up there, so we need to weaken Trump at every opportunity now without it being overly overt. As I say a difficult line, but we can’t strengthen him by making him look strong externally and indirectly weaken the growing and hopefully overwhelming internal forces against him. If this extremist movement isn’t stopped now it will smother us all not to far down the line.
I’m worried vance gets in because I think he’s trump 2.0 sure he said something about he’s not keen on Britain and France having nuclear weapons, these people don’t give a shit about us and never will but I keep hearing we have to keep them sweet which is idiotic in my opinion, really think we need to have an absolute ding dong with them to show we’re not pussies, the rest of the world is watching us shit ourselves which Russia will be loving and china will be watching with interest.
Wonderful.
CDS confirms the obvious.
Splendid.
Now….about the long list of kit you are in a state of paralysis with as you are not allowed to spend money.
The 2 billion plus you need to save this year.
That Chagos payments have been shoved into your budget increase, along with over a billion spent on rehoming Afgans.
The 3 billion plus also put into core which goes on Ukraine doing your fighting for you.
Your government obsessed with granstanding committing forces from the Arctic to Turkey without the resources to do it effectively.
Another yes man, looking at his peerage and pension, I could only watch a few seconds of your performance yesterday dodging and diving to avoid basic questions from the HoCDSC.
And we call this parliamentary oversight????
I couldn’t watch most of it either to be honest.
It was not easy viewing.
Did anyone notice that not one of his medals is a campaign medal? Having researched them, they are his knighthood, the king’s coronation medal and some of Elizabeth II’s jubilee medals.
Let’s make sure we can defend the Isle of Wight and then maybe we can start pretending we are big boys on the block. It’s pathetic all this macho crap from our politicians who then bring in increased defence spending that actually seems to shrink capability. Trump is a nutter, just ignore him, he will get whats coming soon enough along with his dreadful country whose population did in fact elect their own Emperor.
I wonder if the Danes renamed Greenland ‘ Epsteinland’ would that stop the US felon forever banging on about it.
Although I hear he does like to bang on an island…
.
He’ll just rename it Arctic America and keep on keeping on.
I have been thinking on how to square the circle over Greenland. We want to show solidarity with Nato/Greenland/Denmark, without enraging Trump. Also the UK has limited assets. Best I can come up with, is to offer to base 2x RN FAA Merlin ASW helicopters in Greenland. Trump is worried about Russian/Chinese activity in the seas off Greenland, so he should be happy with that.
It was never about China or Russia. It was never about defense either.
Denmark has bought additional F-35 units over their planned initial order solely to base units in Greenland since Trump started making statements and threats last year, they have also signed for P-8s, a complete overhaul of their navy with around 30 planned ships and options being explored to expand the combat fleet as well, airdefenses (NASAMS, IRIST, VL MICA, SAMPT & Mistral for good measure in one of the most unhinged panic buys I think any western country has ever done defense wise) and doubling their armoured combat fleet to a respectable level (around 250~ units planned between Leopard & CV-90. Denmark and any other NATO country could stick anything we wanted on Greenland and Trumps stance won’t change, he said he “needs it for personal reasons,” for crying out load two days ago.
The danger period is between now & the mid terms.
‘…highlighted the tension between political signalling and military capacity..’ That is truly British understatement. As the first goes up exponentially the latter inevitably de lines in synchronisation. What was that film ‘The Mouse that Roared’ clearly a must watch for British PMs.