European nations cannot be sovereign within NATO

European nations are invoking the language of sovereignty and resistance to Trump while maintaining or remain or even intensifying the structures of dependency — first and foremost NATO itself

This is an extended version of an article originally published in The Telegraph.

---

Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

---

The annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos is not known as a hotbed of anti-imperialist resistance, let alone anti-US rhetoric. Yet this was unmistakably the tone of many speeches delivered this year.

The most striking and widely discussed intervention came from Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney [which I analysed in detail here]. Carney openly declared the so-called “rules-based international order” dead — and even questioned whether it had ever truly existed. He conceded that this order was always, at least in part, a fiction: one in which rules were applied selectively by the hegemon to advance its interests, while subordinate powers went along with the charade because they benefited from it.

But this bargain, Carney argued, has collapsed now that the United States the has turned its coercive tools against Western allies themselves. “This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination”, he said, clearly alluding to Trump’s threats against Greenland — and Canada itself.

Carney’s conclusion is that middle-ranking Western powers must break ranks with the hegemon and indeed coordinate to resist it.

Many European leaders in Davos appeared to echo this sentiment. “Being a happy vassal is one thing, being a miserable slave is something else”, remarked Belgian prime minister Bart De Wever. “This is not a time for new imperialism or new colonialism”, declared French president Emmanuel Macron. Faced with Trump’s aggressive unilateralism, “it is time to seize this opportunity and build a new independent Europe”, argued European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen.

Such statements have led some commentators to suggest that transatlantic tensions, simmering since Trump’s return to power, are escalating into an outright revolt against Washington. A closer look, however, points to a rather different reality.

A first clue lies in the fact that all European leaders in Davos — like Carney himself — reaffirmed their commitment to NATO and to the proxy war in Ukraine. How can one credibly claim to seek “independence” from the United States while remaining firmly embedded in NATO — the primary instrument through which Washington has long militarily subordinated its Western “allies” — and actively supporting a proxy war that has been the central driver of Europe’s economic degradation and geopolitical hyper-vassalisation?

There is much discussion today of a so-called “European NATO” — a NATO without the United States. But this is a fantasy. NATO is structurally anchored to US leadership, capabilities and command structures. Thus, European rearmament within NATO does not represent a break with the existing order; rather, it reinforces the Atlanticist system and deepens Europe’s structural reliance on North American power. This should dispel any illusion of European strategic autonomy or sovereignty.

Greenland is the most obvious illustration of the chasm between rhetoric and material reality. Publicly, European leaders are posturing as defenders of Denmark’s sovereignty, condemning Trump’s annexationist threats as violations of international law. In practice, however, they have already moved to militarise Greenland — and the Arctic more broadly — within the framework of NATO. This was made explicit by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at Davos: “President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence”.

This stance is presented as an alternative response to Trump’s threats. In reality, it amounts to a capitulation to them: Greenland is effectively being placed under US control via NATO. Trump himself has boasted that ongoing negotiations grant the US “total access” without the US “paying anything”.

Ironically, this is a textbook example of the very “performative sovereignty” Carney himself decried — a posture that speaks the language of autonomy while fully accepting the material fact of subordination through integrated NATO command structures, US-controlled critical infrastructure and Western financial architectures.

Meanwhile, for all the talk of Greenland’s right to self-determination, Greenlanders’ own preferences are being sidelined. Many residents have expressed frustration at being treated as objects of geopolitical bargaining rather than as a people with agency. Though some Greenlanders see a need for increased surveillance and security in the Arctic given global tensions, they stress that this should not come at the expense of sovereignty or be used to justify external control. But the reality is that the decision has already been made irrespective of local consent.

One is therefore entitled to ask whether this episode amounts to a classic bad cop-good cop manoeuvre designed to achieve the long-standing goal of militarising Greenland. The logic is familiar: first, a worst-case scenario is introduced; then, an “alternative” solution — long-sought but previously politically untenable — is presented as the only viable means of averting disaster.

Ultimately, the Davos rhetoric of autonomy and resistance appears less like a geopolitical turning point than a rebranding of empire, where the language of sovereignty is increasingly invoked even as the structures of dependency remain or even intensify.

---

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

X: @battleforeurope

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)