Recent statements by officials in the administration of Donald Trump, suggesting that Greenland should become part of U.S. territory, have revived an old but uncomfortable question: how balanced is power within the world’s most powerful military alliance? While Greenland remains firmly under Denmark and Copenhagen has rejected any notion of cession, the episode highlights how the sheer economic and military weight of the United States shapes — and strains — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
NATO’s original purpose and its enduring strength
Founded in 1949, North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created with three clear objectives: to deter Soviet expansionism, prevent the resurgence of militarism in Europe through a sustained North American presence, and encourage political integration among European states. With 32 members today — including the U.S., Canada, the UK, and most European Union countries — NATO has long been regarded as a cornerstone of global stability and a major reason a third world war has been avoided.
Yet, behind the image of collective strength lies a profound imbalance.
The economic gap that defines NATO today
The United States now towers over its allies economically. By 2025, U.S. GDP exceeds the combined GDP of all other NATO members. This marks a dramatic reversal from 2014, when the rest of NATO still collectively outweighed the American economy.
In just over a decade, the U.S. added roughly $13 trillion to its economic output, while the rest of NATO added about $6 trillion. Much of this divergence reflects sustained U.S. growth alongside stagnation in major European economies such as Germany and the UK.
On a per capita basis, the disparity is even sharper: the average American is roughly twice as prosperous as the average citizen of other NATO countries. This difference translates directly into fiscal capacity and strategic leverage.
Military spending: where power truly concentrates
Economic dominance feeds directly into military power. The U.S. spends more on defence than all other NATO members combined — both in absolute terms and as a share of GDP. It also leads decisively in per capita defence expenditure, reflecting a political system more willing to prioritise military spending.
The only area where the U.S. does not eclipse the rest of NATO combined is personnel numbers. Even here, however, it accounts for nearly 40% of all military personnel in the 32-member alliance, underscoring its centrality to NATO’s operational capacity.
Why this imbalance matters politically
This asymmetry gives Washington extraordinary leverage. When the U.S. signals displeasure — whether over defence spending targets, strategic priorities, or even provocative ideas like Greenland — smaller allies face a stark reality: NATO’s security guarantee is heavily dependent on American power.
A hypothetical forcible U.S. move against Greenland would not merely be a bilateral crisis with Denmark; it would strike at NATO’s core principle that members do not threaten each other’s territorial integrity. Many analysts argue such an act would effectively rupture the alliance.
Exploitation of dependence, not alliance equality
The Greenland episode illustrates how imbalance can be exploited rhetorically and strategically. While the idea itself may be impractical, it underscores a broader pattern: U.S. leaders can test the limits of allied dependence because Europe lacks comparable economic growth and military autonomy.
This is why repeated calls from Washington for Europe to “do more” on defence resonate differently today. The imbalance is no longer marginal; it is structural.
What to note for Prelims?
- Founding year and objectives of NATO
- Current number of NATO members
- Greenland’s political status
- U.S. share in NATO defence spending
What to note for Mains?
- Impact of economic asymmetry on alliance politics
- Limits of collective security when power is unequal
- Implications of U.S. dominance for NATO cohesion
- Relevance of NATO in an era of shifting global power
