Podcast Summary: Economist Podcasts – "Thin ice: could the Greenland clash kill NATO?"

Host(s): Jason Palmer & Rosie Blore
Guest: Shashank Joshi, The Economist's defense editor
Release Date: January 19, 2026
Duration: ~27 minutes

Episode Overview

This episode of The Intelligence explores the escalating political crisis surrounding Donald Trump's renewed push for America to purchase Greenland, heightened tensions with European NATO allies, and the existential questions this drama poses for the transatlantic alliance. Defense editor Shashank Joshi analyzes the risks, the underlying motives, and the potential consequences for NATO’s future.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Greenland Crisis: A Modern Geopolitical Flashpoint

[01:56 – 03:18]

• Donald Trump has reiterated his desire for the "complete and total purchase of Greenland" and has announced 10% tariffs on imports from eight European NATO countries sending troops to Greenland.
• Denmark (which governs Greenland) and other European leaders have voiced staunch opposition, framing Trump's threats as blackmail and personal vendetta.
  • Danish MP Lars Christian Brask (quoted via BBC):

    "You cannot sell a population. It's modern slavery." (03:02)

Quote:

“A few weeks ago, many people would have struggled to locate Greenland on a map. Now the clash over this Arctic island risks tearing apart the global order.”
– Rosie Blore (03:08)

2. How Serious is the Threat to NATO?

[03:18 – 05:26]

• Shashank Joshi sees this as the most significant transatlantic crisis "in either of Donald Trump's two presidencies."
  • The language of European officials is "blackmail, intimidation, threats... I have never seen Europeans use in this way towards the United States...” (03:34)
• While outright war over Greenland is unlikely, Joshi is concerned that escalating diplomatic and economic pressure could lead to a unilateral U.S. annexation of Greenland by declaration.
• Trump's public reasons include:
  • Greenland’s strategic location for missile defense (true for 60 years, regardless of ownership)
  • Claim that Europe cannot defend Greenland against China/Russia (but U.S. could help without ownership)
  • Underlying interests: resource extraction and a personal legacy of American territorial expansion (Manifest Destiny, "seeing America expand on a map")

    • "A lot of analysts think that Donald Trump is also interested and attracted to the natural resources under Greenland... And I think more generally, there is a sense he wants to be a president who once again sees America expand on a map."
      – Shashank Joshi (04:35 – 05:26)

3. Is This Crisis Different from Past NATO Frictions?

[05:26 – 06:37]

• Previous disputes (Turkey/Cyprus in 1974, Cod Wars between Britain and Iceland) never threatened NATO’s core integrity.
• U.S. is the backbone of NATO—militarily, logistically, and in terms of deterrence.

  • “…American threats to Greenland are much, much more serious than any of those prior conflicts. And the fundamental reason for that, Rosie, is that America is the backbone of NATO... any dispute that threatens America's role in the alliance... is existential to the alliance in that really nothing else has been..."
    – Shashank Joshi (05:35 – 06:37)

4. Impact on the War in Ukraine

[06:37 – 08:01]

• European leaders find themselves in the paradox of seeking U.S. backing for security, while feeling “blackmailed” over Greenland.
• Erosion of trust in Article 5 (the mutual defense clause), further undermined under Trump’s leadership style.

  • “These are, I don’t want to say, nails in the coffin of NATO on Article 5. That would be far too strong... but this is profoundly eroding what diminished trust there was in Article 5, even prior to this latest assault...”
    – Shashank Joshi (07:21 – 08:01)

5. The Rational vs. Political Calculus for America

[08:01 – 09:22]

• Rational viewpoint: U.S. relies heavily on European bases and NATO partnerships for global power projection and operations (e.g., Ramstein Air Base in Germany, support by Denmark in intelligence and logistics).
• However, some White House advisors (not all) might see NATO’s fragmentation as a tolerable or even desirable outcome.

6. What If NATO Collapses?

[09:22 – 10:13]

• European defense is deeply intertwined with, and dependent on, American support (intelligence, refueling, logistics, senior command).
• Europe cannot simply “throw money” at the gaps; such transformation (to become self-sufficient) would take years.
• Despite this, Europe is responding forcefully and with surprising unity.

7. Is This the End for NATO?

[10:13 – 12:13]

• Joshi is adamant NATO isn’t over yet, noting opposition even among congressional Republicans to Trump’s Greenland gambit.
• The alliance is too large and complex to dissolve at the whim of a single leader—though lasting damage is possible if the U.S. walks away or escalates further.

  • “But to actually act on this, that would be lunacy, because we would face profound consequences on everything from trade retaliation to implications for tech companies to our access to bases in Europe. And I think that that is not quite where the United States is willing to go just yet. But Europe has to contemplate that world now.”
    – Shashank Joshi (11:22 – 12:13)

• One certain lesson: Europe will have to accelerate its efforts toward defense autonomy, with “much less America in it.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I think this is the biggest crisis in the transatlantic relationship in either of Donald Trump's two presidencies, much more serious than anything we've had in the past.”
  – Shashank Joshi (03:18)

• “If America is really willing to dismember one ally, that is Denmark, why would anyone believe it will come to the aid of another ally if it is attacked by Russia as per its obligations under Article 5?”
  – Shashank Joshi (07:05)

• “It's just too big, complex, and important to dissolve at the whims of one man.”
  – Shashank Joshi on NATO (10:17 – 12:13)

• “Europeans realize even if this issue is resolved, they must move much, much more quickly, much more seriously, to a vision of European defense that can exist with much less America in it.”
  – Shashank Joshi (12:09)

Key Timestamps of the NATO/Greenland Segment

• 01:56 – Introduction to the Greenland crisis and Trump’s renewed push for purchase
• 03:18 – Shashank Joshi on the scale of the crisis
• 04:01 – Joshi on likelihood of war, annexation scenario
• 04:35 – Trump’s motives for Greenland
• 05:26 – Comparison to historical NATO disputes
• 06:37 – Fallout for Ukraine conflict and Article 5 trust
• 08:11 – Rational strategic interests for U.S.; possible White House perspectives
• 09:28 – What is at stake for Europe if NATO cracks
• 10:17 – Could this be the end of NATO?
• 12:13 – The case for European defense autonomy

Tone & Language

• Analytical and grave, underscoring the unprecedented seriousness of the controversy—but tempered with historical perspective and a focus on practical realities.
• Joshi’s commentary is candid, cautious, but unequivocal about the risks.
• The discussion is free of sensationalism but does not shy away from describing the crisis as "existential" for NATO.

Summary for New Listeners

This episode is essential listening for anyone seeking to understand the new, volatile nature of transatlantic politics. The Economist's team lays out the Greenland crisis as not merely a diplomatic spat but potentially the most severe test NATO has faced in its existence. The prospect of U.S.-led fragmentation, the erosion of trust in Article 5, and the necessity for European defense autonomy are all explored in depth. This is a must-listen for those following global security—and for those trying to grasp how the future of Western alliances could hinge on a remote Arctic island.