NATO

Any acquisition of Greenland by the United States–whether by force or through coerced agreement–would directly violate fundamental principles of international law.

This hypothetical legal review imagines what a senior judge advocate’s legal analysis would be if ordered to plan a U.S. military operation in Greenland without Denmark's consent.

Trump’s threats to invade Greenland risk destroying NATO itself, but a little-known statute, 22 U.S.C. 1928f, could prevent him from doing just that.

The challenge is not recognition of Greenland’s importance; it is ensuring that security enhancements are strategic, sustainable, and allied-driven.

Would NATO have to defend Denmark if the United States attempted to seize Greenland? Article 5 suggests other allies are obligated to come to Denmark's defense if requested.

Trump’s foreign policy remains an inconsistent array of initiatives and adventures: bold in Latin America, bad in Greenland, yet often constructive on Ukrainian security.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that the West promised not to expand NATO is a myth—denied by Gorbachev, ignored by Yeltsin, and invented years into Putin’s rule.

European militaries can adapt and operationalize civilian protection as they increase defense spending to protect themselves against Russia.

"International law, in its wisdom, makes such options legally available."

A European "reassurance force" for Ukraine risks being another notional "guarantee" offering little more than a false sense of security.

The United States and its allies can use the Taiwan model to make post-war Ukraine more secure without writing checks they cannot cash.

Getting to any deal between Ukraine & Russia will require the United States & Europe to stand by Ukrainians & stare down Russia's demands.