NATO is expanding military operations in the Arctic under a new initiative dubbed “Arctic Sentry.” Officially, the alliance says the mission is designed to counter growing Russian and Chinese interest in the region. Unofficially, diplomats and analysts suggest the real objective is far more political: keeping US President Donald Trump satisfied after he threatened to annex Greenland.
As NATO defense ministers head to a summit in Brussels, the alliance’s new Arctic push is widely regarded as a rebranding exercise rather than anything in response to a pressing security threat.
Pressure from Washington Drives NATO’s Shift
More than a dozen NATO diplomats, officials, and military experts say the alliance’s pivot toward Greenland was triggered by intense U.S. pressure. The threat of Trump to capture the Danish territory prompted the Europeans to rethink their policy, so as not to further alienate the United States.
While the leadership claims that carrying out the strike is essential both for regional security, NATO officials admit in private circles that it is merely a political move to placate the U.S. president.
Allies Fear Fallout from Greenland Dispute
Trump’s rhetoric over Greenland earlier this year apparently came as a wake-up call for many European governments, fueling their uncertainty about U.S. reliability as an ally. The issue is set to weigh heavily on the agenda of the Munich Security conference, where senior U.S. officials will meet allies.
According to a Public First poll in five Western nations, majorities believed Trump was serious about acquiring Greenland, particularly because of its resources and strategic positioning in the Arctic region. Only a small fraction believed Russia and China posed an actual threat.
Security Threats Seen as Overstated
Experts widely argue that NATO already has overwhelming capabilities in the Arctic. Analysts say the perceived security gap is more about messaging than military necessity.
The United States can deploy thousands of troops to Greenland from Alaska within a day, and already conducts regular Arctic operations. According to experts, any new NATO mission is largely symbolic.
Concerns cited by Washington—such as Russian icebreakers, hypersonic missiles, and new shipping routes—are viewed by many analysts as exaggerated or unchanged since the Cold War era.
Russia and China: Symbolic Concerns, Limited Reality
Specialists note that Russian and Chinese cooperation in the Arctic remains largely symbolic, with Moscow wary of granting Beijing significant access to the region. Meanwhile, the strategic shipping routes opening due to melting ice are far from Greenland and remain commercially marginal.
The real military presence, experts say, is concentrated in the European Arctic, where Russia’s Northern Fleet operates nuclear submarines. Even there, NATO is considered significantly stronger, especially after Finland and Sweden joined the alliance and European states increased surveillance capabilities.
Critics Call Greenland Mission “Pointless”
Several military experts argue that a Greenland-focused NATO mission adds little strategic value. With Russia weakened by losses in Ukraine and NATO expanding its Arctic capabilities, additional deployments to Greenland are viewed as redundant.
Some analysts warn that a permanent maritime presence could even be risky, placing NATO vessels in hostile environments with limited logistical support.
Official NATO Narrative vs Internal Doubts
Despite skepticism, NATO officials maintain that Arctic Sentry will strengthen deterrence through joint exercises involving tens of thousands of personnel and specialized equipment. Initially, the mission will consolidate existing exercises under NATO command, with the possibility of future air and maritime deployments.
Privately, diplomats say the mission also serves as a warning to Russia and China—especially in the event Greenland were to become independent and potentially leave NATO, a scenario its leaders currently reject.
Costly Deployments and Questionable Returns
The U.S. currently maintains a small troop presence at Pituffik Space Base, and Denmark and Greenland have signaled openness to expanded deployments. However, former NATO officials warn that permanent basing would be costly and unjustified given current conditions.
Some allies acknowledge that resources could be better spent elsewhere, but argue that appeasing Washington is worth the expense to prevent fractures within the alliance.
Unity at Any Price?
For some NATO members, the Arctic mission is less about defense and more about alliance management. Sending ships and troops to Greenland may be inefficient, diplomats admit, but they see it as a small price compared to the risk of NATO unraveling under U.S. pressure.
Ultimately, Arctic Sentry appears to be as much a diplomatic maneuver as a military one—highlighting how Trump’s unpredictability is shaping alliance policy in ways that have little to do with actual threats.
