Because of those ambiguities over how to use the article, last month Kubilius told POLITICO he wants to open a discussion on “institutional defense readiness” this year, which could include revamping Article 42.7 to make it fully operational with a clear procedure and an integrated military command.
5. What would it mean for NATO?
Denmark has warned that a U.S. annexation of Greenland would spell the end of the alliance, although Trump disagrees.
If the U.S. orchestrates a takeover, “it doesn’t necessarily mean … legally at least, the end of NATO, but it would mean politically the hollowing out of NATO’s credibility,” said Fabrice Pothier, CEO of Rasmussen Global, a political consultancy.
That could lead to “some EU members [to] go for more EU solutions, maybe putting more flesh behind 42.7,” he added.
But that would involve creating a new security architecture for Europe without the U.S., which has been the continent’s crucial guarantor since World War II.
“NATO is in charge of collective defense in the Euro-Atlantic area: it has the defense plans, command and control structures and capability targets,” said a NATO diplomat. “The EU, for its part, brings to the table its financial power, industrial policy and regulatory might.”
Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.
This article has been updated.