>>: Photos like these started circulating in January and honestly, they stopped a lot of people in their tracks. They show soldiers from countries including France, Germany and Denmark landing in Greenland for a mission. On the surface, it looked like a show of NATO unity. But at the same time, US President Donald Trump was insisting that Greenland, the semi-autonomous Danish territory, must belong to the US, and there were real fears that this might go beyond rhetoric, that the Americans might actually take military action. In his recent speech at Davos, the president appeared to rule that out. "We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that." But some heard it less as reassurance and more like a veiled threat. Now, Trump says he's got the framework of a deal with NATO secretary general. It's not clear yet what that involves, and allies remain rattled. A US invasion of Greenland would once have seemed unimaginable. Now NATO countries have to navigate a world in which they've been threatened by one of their own members. So the question is, can one of the world's more powerful alliances be able to weather the storm? Today we are digging into the crisis. What is really at stake for NATO, and what could it mean for global security? But first, NATO is grounded in the idea of collective security. According to Article 5, an attack on one of its 32 members is considered an attack on all that is intended to deter outside threats. But what happens if the threat comes from the inside? What if one NATO country attacks another? This is The Rundown.

>>: At a recent news conference, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk issued a stark warning: an attempt to take over part of a NATO member state by another NATO member state would be a political disaster. It would be the end of the world as we know it, which guaranteed a world based on NATO solidarity. Thanks to Donald Trump's threats against Canada and Greenland, NATO is now in completely uncharted territory. In this episode of TVO, today's series unravelled, experts walk us through what NATO was set up to achieve and the impossible choices member countries would have to face if one of their own attacked. "I may put a tariff on countries if they don't go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security. So I may do that." The question of NATO's role in this is it's tricky in a way. "We're not talking about money for Greenland yet. I might talk about that. But right now we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not." What NATO isn't built to deal with is when one member attacks another member. NATO is a military alliance among North Atlantic states, North America and European states. That is based on the idea of collective defence. An attack on one is an attack on all. So if any of those NATO member states are attacked, then every other member is supposed to come to their defence. It's why membership is so desired. It's why Ukraine has worked so hard to try to make the case that it should be part of NATO, because that security guarantee is ironclad. But the whole idea of NATO is that the threat is outside that that attack, that everybody is in an alliance together against is external to the organisation.

>>: Canada is going to be a very serious contender to be our 51st state. When you get rid of that artificially drawn line, I'd like to see Canada become our 51st state. >>: The idea that one state within NATO will attack another is not part of the thinking. It's what has made NATO so successful is that underlying assumption that you didn't have to worry about the other members. We had a really odd NATO situation where the head of NATO met with President Trump in the Oval Office. >>: What is your vision for the potential annexation of Greenland and getting them potentially to. Well, I think it will happen. >>: And I'm just thinking I didn't give it much thought before, but I'm sitting with a man that could be very instrumental. You know, Mark, we need that for international security, not just Security International. >>: When it comes to Greenland. Yes. We're not joining the US. I would leave that outside for me, this discussion, because I don't want to direct NATO in that. >>: President Trump kind of said in passing, for security reasons, Greenland really should be ours and it will be ours. And he turned to the head of NATO and said, and, you know, we might need NATO's help on that. And it's kind of a mind blowing moment because you say, how does that even work? And why would he even say that shows you what a different world we're in now. A few months ago had the head of NATO been in that situation, and a president said that to him it would have been headline news for ages. And it just went by in a flash. >>: What we've seen since Trump has started making these threats, not just against Canada, but also against Denmark, who of course is responsible for Greenland is some very, very careful diplomacy. >>: NATO is not equipped, not in its thinking, not in its military preparedness to deal with one state invading another or seeking to annex another. >>: I'm not in the corridors of NATO headquarters in Brussels, so I don't know what's going on in there, but what my colleagues who are there will be needing to consider is the amount of pressure they might want to bring on the United States to cease the rhetoric, because depending on the pressure they apply, knowing who Donald Trump is, which is a bully who does not like people telling him he cannot do what he would like to do and cannot say what he would like to say. If you press him back too much, he'll just take his toys and go home. >>: How NATO allies think about each other. Would European states come to support us if the US did something towards annexation with us? Would they be so worried about their own security vis a vis Russia that they're unwilling to come to our assistance? Would we go to Denmark's assistance if, in fact, the US does something to make some kind of move against Greenland? Those are all big unknowns for NATO and for member states of NATO.

>>: At Davos, Prime Minister Mark Carney reiterated Canada's support for Greenland and Denmark and for Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. "Our commitment to NATO's Article 5 is unwavering." But he also acknowledged something else. "I think we're clearly NATO is experiencing a test right now." Is this the most critical test the alliance has faced since it was established almost 80 years ago? And how have Trump's threats affected the future of security in the Arctic? I asked Roland Paris, director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. Stephanie Carvin, an associate professor of international relations at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, and Robert Fife, the Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau chief. Great to have you all three on the program. I want to start with you, Robert. As we mentioned, President Trump announced last week that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had reached a quote unquote, framework for a future deal. A lot of questions as to what that deal actually encompasses. Can you help us understand a little bit? What do we know about it? >>: Well, it's the same deal we've we've already had with with Greenland, which is that Denmark and Greenland remain part of NATO. They remain independent. They don't. The Americans are not going to buy or take over Greenland. But you will probably see more US investment on base base. They already have there. And more significantly, I think it's going to be part of a continental defence missile shield, which Canada is going to participate in as well. So it was a lot of bluster, got it shook up the NATO alliance. It shook up Europe. It shook up Canada, as he always does. He's a wrecking ball. And whenever he turns his attention to any issue, at the end of the day, fortunately, the European members of NATO as well as Canada stood up to the bully and he backed down.

>>: Well, Roland, I want to bring you in here talking about Trump. Why do you think Trump's mission changed when he landed in Europe? A bit of a departure from what we thought we were going to get. But why did it change? >>: Well, I don't think his mission has changed. I think that he adjusted his tactics, and my guess is because he learned and he saw that there was actual resistance, real resistance building to his pressure on Greenland. And I say his mission hasn't changed because I don't think he's going to give up his attempts to secure Greenland. You know, there's a parallel here to what's happened with the the role of ice in Minneapolis. So you have a kind of horrendous killing of somebody on the street in Minneapolis. Suddenly there is a shift in the discussion about ice in the United States. Some of Trump's closest allies start expressing their concerns. He hits a point where he is facing real resistance, and he adjusts. He changes his language. He changes the officials who are going to be responsible. He makes a tactical backstep. I don't think it changes at all what his mission is, and his mission remains the the, the transformation of the United States into much more of an imperial power, using its power to extract concessions and his treatment of allies as not allies, but as clients or as as subservient countries that are there to be exploited and for their resources to be extracted. That hasn't changed. >>: Stephanie Roland mentioned resistance. The president is facing resistance from a number of people, Denmark's prime minister being one, insisting that American sovereignty over military bases in Greenland remains a, quote, red line. Why? >>: Well, I think in the same way that we Canadians would not want to give up any of our sovereignty to accommodate the wishes of President Trump, Denmark has felt the same way. In fact, I've seen a lot of commentary. There's been a lot of tension between Greenland and Denmark for some time. Greenland. There is an independence movement there, and strangely enough, this has actually brought the two sides together as they have been concerned about their sovereignty. So in the same way that we are, you know, would would not want to give up, I don't know, Baffin Island or anything like that there. I think this is where Denmark is. And there was a lot of resentment, actually, after the discussion between Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, and President Trump by Denmark, who said, look, it's there's been this announcement, we haven't been consulted and this is our territory. So this I guess, yes, there is this deal. But what I would suggest is one is obviously Denmark is still concerned and they have an obvious vested interest. Secondly, President Trump, you know, a deal is not a deal to him, right? A deal is just his mood swinging. And I think that, you know, a lot of this depends on, you know, his attitude towards various things going on, whether domestically or internationally, really depends on who is the last person in the room with him. Right. So I think there's this always competition to get there. And, you know, yes, there was this deal announced. But we did see this weekend, for example, on Truth Social, which is the Trump social media platform, that he was posting pictures of him being in the Arctic with penguins, which is interesting because there are no penguins in the Arctic. Right? But there we go. So I mean, like, I don't think this is over yet. I still think that there is going to be tension. And to a large extent, we did see some of the concerns by the secretary general of NATO this week. You know, when he spoke to Parliament, the European Parliament, and basically expressed that, look, we have to keep the United States in NATO and that there is going to have to be some kind of deal arranged over, over Greenland. So I just don't think this is over yet. And I think this is going to be something that really does continue to dominate 2026.

>>: All right. I want to play a short snippet of Mark Carney's speech in Davos. Let's have a listen. "We knew the story of the international rules based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim. In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice, compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact." >>: As we know, that speech got a rare applause from the crowd there. Robert, I want to know why do you think Carney decided that this was the stage sort of break down the international rules based order? >>: Well, I mean, you have to look at the participants who go to Davos, not only world leaders, but also very significant members of the business community in Europe and Asia and in the United States. It was a good opportunity because he was speaking to both world leaders, but also corporate leaders in the world, and it was a message that really hit home. I mean, he got a standing ovation, for which I think in some ways was almost a Churchillian speech, the way he framed what the United States and to some extent China as well, have been, have been using their economic might to be able to bully other countries. And he's quite right that countries like Europe and Canada and Japan and South Korea need to band together to be able to stand up to the United States in the change in its its American first policy and its use of tariffs and economic integration to try to bully people. China is doing the same thing. It was a very important message. It really obviously it upset President Trump. You know, he was upstaged by Prime Minister Carney. And, you know, he's threatening 100% tariffs. And and then, you know, last night he's got his Treasury secretary out saying that Carney called the president and back pedalled aggressively back on what he said in Davos. And the Prime Minister on. Tuesday morning came out and said, absolutely not true. I, I told the president I stand by exactly what I said. And then they went on to talk about the trade stuff. So the negotiations that are upcoming. So, you know, it hit the mark. And the little tantrum from the president showed that it did hit the mark.

>>: Roland, as we know we have the framework here, but it's still unclear where the fight over Greenland is going to be heading next. Unless you do know. But help us understand a little bit, you know, will NATO survive this? Are there some serious questions about sort of where this alliance moves after all of this? But what are your thoughts? >>: You know, it is hard to know at this point. I don't think there's going to be a moment when, you know, there's a declaration NATO is over. NATO can exist on paper, and the trust that it actually relies upon can be gone. And that's the thing about military alliances. What what makes them effective is, is an idea, a set of ideas, a belief that all of the members will come to each other's defence if any of them is attacked. And, you know, it was one thing for Trump to raise doubts about whether he would come to the support of NATO countries if they were attacked. I think he he was asked specifically about Poland, and he said it would depend on the circumstances, a very different thing for him to threaten military force against another NATO member. And that obviously weakens the trust, but it also weakens the deterrent effect of NATO as an organisation, because if there are doubts by an adversary about whether NATO would respond to an attack on any one of its members, then it, you know, it potentially invites them to test whether whether that resolve still exists. And and so looking a few years down the line, if the war in Ukraine comes to at least temporary conclusion, Russia has an opportunity to rebuild its forces and think, look elsewhere. I would be very concerned about the Baltic countries going forward, and I think it would be very important for NATO to be able to communicate that it continues to be an alliance based on resolve and trust among its members. And we'll see whether that's possible beyond Trump.

>>: Robert, what does this say about the future of the Alliance and hopefully pick up on what Roland said there? >>: Well, look, I mean, the there is a pretty widespread support in the US Congress for NATO. They understand the importance of this alliance to the United States. The United States can't go it alone. I mean, they obviously the world's major world's biggest military power, but alliances and allies are absolutely important in in the global sphere. And I think there is a realization in Congress that certainly there's a realization of that in the US military. And I think broad sections of American society. But there is an element in the Republican Party led by Trump and the MAGA crowd that are opposed to that. And this is something that even in Trump, if we manage to get rid of him in the next election campaign and say the Democrats win, this is still going to be a problem that the, you know, the US is going to be grappling with, NATO is going to be grappling with for some time because President Trump has left an enormous amount of damage to the NATO alliance and undermined confidence in the institutions. And it's even if he goes away or drops dead tomorrow that there is a segment of American society that do not want to go it alone. And that is going to be a challenge for NATO in the foreseeable future. >>: Stephanie, you get the last 30s. >>: Yeah, it's always boring to have the radical agreement with the other speakers, but it is true. I mean, there is the concern about a zombie NATO, right? But at the same time, I think, you know, like, I'll try to put the silver lining on this, which is that the United States has something like 80,000 troops in Europe right now in several military bases. Those bases are used for American operations worldwide. Right. And the US clearly is very randomly under the Trump administration, getting itself involved in a lot of conflicts worldwide. And it will need to continue to have those military bases. So I don't necessarily think that a withdrawal is necessary. But to Robert's good point. You know, JD Vance last year gave a very serious speech at the Munich Security conference where he's basically like Europe, you're dead. You're you're you're you're kind of dead to us. And we're moving on. And between that and the US national security strategy, even if the US continues to have a presence in Europe and NATO, we are still going to be in a rough ride for the next three years at least.

>>: All right. We are going to leave it there. Roland. Robert, Stephanie, thank you so much for joining us on the program. Really appreciate it. >>: Thank you, thank you. >>: Thank you. >>: If you like what you've seen on the show so far, or if there are issues you want us to dig into, we want to hear from you. You can share your thoughts at TVO.org feedback or leave us a comment on YouTube. Until then, we'll see you next time.