Swedish Supreme Commander Michael Claesson expresses no concern about NATO's future despite Donald Trump's threats to seize Greenland and the US's reduced engagement in Europe. He trusts the US as an ally and sees no signs that the country wants to leave the alliance. Claesson emphasizes the importance of a strong national defense as a plan B.
Swedish Supreme Commander Michael Claesson states in an interview on SVT's Aktuellt that he is not worried about NATO as an alliance amid Donald Trump's statements on Greenland. Trump has threatened military means to seize the island, which is partially governed by Denmark, and expressed that it is important for Greenland to become American. Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an annexation would mean a collapse for NATO as a military alliance.
Claesson is asked about the US's reliability as a NATO member and responds: 'I do not receive that type of signals, neither within the framework of NATO or in any other way.' He supports Denmark's stance and downplays the threats: 'Alliances, international organizations always go through different types of crises, depending on the political composition of the member states' governments and heads of state.'
Claesson has regular contacts with NATO, including meetings in Brussels and a recent meeting with NATO's supreme commander, the American general Alexus Grynkewich. He sees no signs that the US wants to leave the alliance: 'I see no signs right now of any hasty withdrawal or pullback.' The US's new security strategy involves reduced engagement in Europe, but Claesson considers it reasonable for Europeans to take more responsibility: 'We darn well have an obligation to take care of our own security.'
In the long term, a US withdrawal could require increased Swedish rearmament, but NATO has regional defense plans where affected countries bear the main responsibility. Claesson mentions previous crises in NATO, such as France's withdrawal from the military cooperation in 1966–1998 and tensions between Greece and Turkey. As alternatives, there are bilateral agreements with the US and Finland, Nordefco, and JEF. 'The nice thing is that these cooperations exist under the NATO umbrella as a complement,' he says.
Regarding Greenland: 'It would clearly be an extremely troublesome circumstance, but I do not see it as something that will be realized.' Claesson assumes that issues will be resolved without military intervention and focuses on strengthening Sweden's defense to give the government freedom of action.
