US tanker seizure leaves Nato with a sinking feeling

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

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.

But more than the money, and the military strength that buys, it is the organisational warp and weft that weaves the US dominance into the fabric of Nato. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur) is the direct descendant of Eisenhower and his military organisation that has controlled western military strategy since the preparations for D-day.

Nato’s main military headquarters is the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (Shape), based near Mons, in Belgium. But the core of this organisation is a US military base, European Command (Eucom), many of whose senior staff officers are based at the same site.

The Saceur is the military head of Nato, but before that he is the commander of Eucom. Intelligence and military plans are first developed within Eucom, until the US decides which parts of the plans are to be shared with other Nato members. Eucom papers are normally marked Noforn, or “not releasable to foreign nationals”, so US commanders can decide among themselves what they want to happen.

Even when plans are shared, it can be a highly selective process for deciding who is in the inner circle. During the Kosovo campaign of 1998, there would be Eucom meetings early in the morning to assess the success or otherwise of overnight bombing campaigns, followed by a Nato inner circle briefing of selected highlights to chosen allies and then a more general sharing of sanitised information to a wider Nato group that was about to be shown at the daily press conference.

Such is the US domination of Nato that, in its eyes, Nato can be viewed as a thin veneer on the surface of its European Command. Other parts of the organisation, such as the North Atlantic Council, composed of Nato ambassadors in Brussels, help ensure political cohesion, but there is little doubt where the power really lies.

The organisation is thus dominated by US power structures and administration, which subtly excludes allies while maintaining a patina of cohesion. No one wants to embarrass anyone by breaking the illusion. Yes, Nato decision-making must be by unanimity, but who decides on the question is clear.

This has led to a form of institutionalised behaviour. Even if European Nato nations were willing to spend the money to replace the US military contribution – hugely unlikely – and even if Europeans were able to populate the command structures with qualified personnel, the Europeans have no experience in making these kinds of decisions. Nor could they agree on who should lead. Britain, France and Germany would all make claims for leadership, but why would any agree to follow their peers?

This is why it makes no sense to discuss a “Nato without America”. The US is the eyes, ears, brain and skeleton of the body. Other countries may contribute component parts, but the architecture of the body comes from Uncle Sam.

It seems that the US is no longer hugely interested in determining what happens in European security. It is clear that it is not prepared to pay for those decision rights. But without the US, there really is no Nato. It would be Hamlet without the prince.

Photograph by Omar Havana/AP