It's lights out for Nato if Uncle Sam leaves the building

On Monday Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, warned that any US attempt to annex Greenland would mean the end of Nato.

- Bernard Gray

The issue is clearly serious, but isn't this an exaggeration? Would a row over Greenland really be the absolute end of an alliance that has secured Europe for more than 75 years? Even if the US were to leave Nato, wouldn't it be possible for the European nations to carry on without it?

Unfortunately, the answer is that Frederiksen is probably right. Now, in apparently seizing - with total impunity - a tanker linked to Venezuelan oil in the north Atlantic, the US is demonstrating how little it cares for the alliances and conventions of even the recent past.

This act of aggression regarding the Marinera demonstrates how America is not just another member of Nato — it’s not even first among equals.

The US completely dominates the alliance in both spending and organisation, and that was just the way it wanted things for most of the last 75 years. It wanted the deciding say in security in Europe, and it was prepared to pay to have its way.

In defence, the US spends almost twice as much as the rest of Nato combined. In 2025, its defence budget was about $980bn, while the next largest nations were Germany at $100bn and the UK at $89bn.

Poland, which is rapidly rearming, spent $52bn last year.