NATO split may come from allies' disputes, not Russia-Ukraine war — analyst

Political analyst Mariia Zolkina, head of the Regional Security and Conflict Studies program at the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, stated this on Espreso TV.

"Regarding Greenland, Europeans are trying to apply the same strategy they are attempting to use with the Russian-Ukrainian war: to convince that they are playing their role in addressing Trump's security concerns, but that a moderate U.S. position is needed.

In other words, Greenland represents an absolutely classic approach by our partners, because no one wants to become an enemy, no one wants a NATO split. After all, a NATO split could happen not over the Russian-Ukrainian issue—as Russia, for example, is trying to portray by demonstrating NATO's ineffectiveness at a certain moment—but rather in relations between the partners themselves within the North Atlantic Alliance," Zolkina noted.

According to the political analyst, at least half of Trump's motivations are purely political and connected to his personal political interests—as a president who wants to leave a certain impression and political legacy for the United States. Establishing a new military base or joint contingent in Greenland will not satisfy him.

"The problem is that for Trump, organizing a landing in Greenland is not taboo and is not a red line. However, for countries on the other side of the ocean—for Great Britain, Denmark, and other NATO partners—responding to such U.S. actions is a red line. If this happens in Greenland and such a NATO split occurs across the Atlantic Ocean, it will actually break NATO apart even before Russia would want to test it, for example, with a hybrid or conventional attack on the Alliance's eastern flank," Zolkina concluded.

• In Canada and the EU, there is a belief that the possibility of a military seizure of Greenland by the United States would mean the end of NATO.