McConnell Delivers Remarks on NATO, Greenland, and the Credibility of U.S. Alliance Commitments

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, delivered the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding NATO, Greenland, and the credibility of U.S. alliance commitments:

For years, the most pressing concern about the future of NATO was whether and when European allies would take the obligations of collective defense more seriously. But today, the biggest questions about the most successful military alliance in the history of the world have to do with United States:

Whether America still recognizes our interests as an anchor of trans-Atlantic security, an arsenal of democracy, and a global leader - not a regional power.

I need to make a number of points here. And it'll be useful to begin with some history:

The Second World War claimed tens of millions of lives, displaced tens of millions more, and left the old world crippled by food shortages and hyperinflation. And after defeating Hitler's genocidal bid for world domination, America's leaders understood that our interests and those of our European allies were linked, whether we liked it or not.

As George Marshall put it in 1947, quote, "the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace."

American security and stability depended on European security and stability. Not least because conflict with Nazi Germany was succeeded immediately by the threat of conflict with the Soviet Union. Millions in Eastern Europe had gone from living under Nazi tyranny to living under Soviet tyranny.
And the American people understood the stakes:

In 1947, more than three quarters of Americans rejected the idea that the Soviet Union was merely building its defenses against future attack. Instead, they reported they thought Russia was bent on conquest.

In 1948, two thirds of Americans said America and western European friends should join a mutual defense pact.

By 1949, with the North Atlantic Treaty in the works, the question got more specific: Would the American people support, quote, "a promise of mutual aid from all members of the alliance if any single member nation is attacked"?

This was a higher bar - the commitment that would become Article 5 - and yet, an even bigger majority of respondents again said yes. Of course, there was still controversy and opposition. There were still isolationists ignoring the lessons of the decade.

But after years of neglect for the national defense… After the folly of appeasement and the failure of deterrence… After pouring the equivalent of 37% of America's GDP into the Arsenal of Democracy and burying 400,000 American servicemembers in the process… The American people knew the costs of war. And they knew they'd rather preserve the peace.

Of course, they didn't intend to do it alone. Americans told pollsters that their early skepticism toward post-war alliance commitments stemmed from a fear that allies would rely too heavily on American leadership.

This would be a recurring theme. But, importantly, for much of NATO's history, the U.S. leaders most concerned about burden-sharing were also fierce defenders of the alliance. They criticized allies because they wanted NATO to work - not because they wanted to score political points at home.

Take our former colleague, Sam Nunn. On multiple occasions, including the 1974 and 1985 NDAAs, he pushed to force allies to carry more of the costs of U.S. forward deployment. And yet, when a majority leader of his own party tried to force a phase-out of U.S. troops from Europe, our former colleague from Georgia fought back… because he understood the value of American leadership and the importance of European security to our own.

The strength of the trans-Atlantic alliance is contingent on its leaders taking collective defense seriously. That's why I've always called out laggards and urged European allies to share more of the burden. But I've also given credit where it's due. And the simple truth is that our allies have undertaken a profound transformation:

This year, Poland will spend 4.8% of its GDP on defense. Estonia and Lithuania will spend 5%, and Latvia will hit that goal in 2027. Alongside Nordic neighbors like Norway and Denmark, who have deployed to harm's way alongside American comrades, NATO's newest members, Sweden and Finland, are each on track to meet the alliance's new spending target years ahead of schedule.

Germany has dramatically increased defense spending and even amended its constitution to allow for deficit spending on defense. Whether Europe's largest economy is serious about its defense transformation is no longer up for debate.

Not every ally is making such impressive progress. But no one can claim ignorance of what's at stake. As Poland's Prime Minister put it bluntly, the choice facing Europe is, quote, "money today or blood tomorrow." Perhaps that's why - in addition to investing heavily in their own defenses - European allies are continuing to dwarf America's assistance to Ukraine… by a factor of 10 to 1.

Our allies' long holiday from history is over. That's good news. And it must continue. But what about America?

European allies continue to grow their defense budgets, but ours have stayed flat across successive Administrations. We're the ones leaving capacity unused and political will untapped. We're talking; not doing.

The President was right to call for a major increase in defense spending. But the annual defense budget request from OMB this year doesn't keep pace with inflation. The FY26 topline won't come close to covering growing costs and requirements - like the multi-year munitions contracts the Department of Defense rightly wants to sign.

We should keep the cost - and value - of America's own commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance in perspective. Take the year 1982, right in the thick of the Reagan buildup that won the Cold War. In FY82, sustaining U.S. military operations in Europe accounted for less than 6.5% of defense outlays.

Remember: Winning World War II meant surging defense spending to 37% of America's gross domestic product. But at the climax of the Cold War, when we were spending 6% of GDP on defense, sustaining a deterrent military presence in Russia's backyard took up less than 6.5% of the annual defense budget.

That sounds a lot less like an entangling alliance than a smart investment in preventing catastrophic war. But what did the American people say?

Well, in 1989, with the Soviets on the ropes, 75% said that NATO ought to be maintained beyond victory. Thirty years later, in 2019, an even greater majority gave the same response… Even before Putin's escalation in Ukraine.

What about now? With Russia waging a war of conquest - and China, Iran, and North Korea pitching in - has NATO outlived its useful life? Is the notion of U.S. interests in Europe just "a Cold War relic"? Or, to paraphrase some of Moscow's most useful idiots, has NATO's existence and growth provoked Putin's aggression?

Let's get a few things straight:

For decades, America and our allies bent over backward to welcome Russian participation at NATO, including through the Partnership for Peace program, and to integrate Russia into the global economy. America sent billions of dollars in economic assistance and encouraged massive investment of private capital in the hopes that Russia would choose to live in peace with the nations it formerly enslaved and with the West.

Putin has repeatedly rejected such peaceful coexistence. He's chosen bloody neo-Soviet empire-building, instead. To the extent that NATO has grown, it's been in response to Russian aggression.

If Putin is looking for someone to blame for Sweden and Finland's accession to the alliance… he ought to look in a mirror. His own brutality has validated the decisions of sovereign nations to join NATO and align with the West.

As for the utility of the alliance for our interests: America's adversaries are choosing to work together. Responding by going it alone would be strategic malpractice. Courting Russia and its GDP of 2.5 trillion dollars… At the expense of longstanding bonds with Europe and its GDP of 27 trillion dollars? That doesn't even align with U.S. economic interests, let alone our values.

Last year, Europe invested three-and-a-half trillion dollars directly in the United States. In recent years, two thirds of our European allies' growing investments in foreign military technologies have been in American-made systems. Together, we make up nearly half of the global economy. If we're serious about global competition with China, these are relationships worth tending. These are allies we ought to be working with, not against…

…Which brings me to the matter of Greenland.

The President is right that Arctic security is a central concern in our strategic competition with major adversaries. And he'll find similar interest in Arctic security among allies like Denmark, which is investing billions of dollars in its own capabilities in the region.

America's recognition of Denmark's political and economic interests in Greenland dates back to World War I. The Danes have been close partners in the Arctic since World War II. And brave Danish soldiers fought and died in America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is no ambiguity here. Close ties with our northernmost allies are what make America's extensive reach in the Arctic possible. And I have yet to hear from this Administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us.

Unless and until the President can demonstrate otherwise, then the proposition at hand today is very straightforward: incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic.

That's allies - plural. Because this is about more than Greenland. It's about more than America's relationship with its highly capable Nordic allies. It's about whether the United States intends to face a constellation of strategic adversaries with capable friends… or commit an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm and go it alone.

Make no mistake: All of the good progress the President has made in pushing allies to spend more on defense… The increased burden-sharing… The demand for American-made capabilities… All of it would be for nothing if his Administration's ill-advised threats about Greenland were to shatter the trust of our allies. Following through on this provocation would be more disastrous for the President's legacy than withdrawing from Afghanistan was for his predecessor. The American people know this. Just 17% say think trying to take control of Greenland is a good idea. Instead, they understand intuitively that strong alliances make America more secure:

The Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted late last year, found that 68% of Americans hold a favorable view of the trans-Atlantic alliance… And 76% support Article 5 and a U.S. military response in the event of an attack on a NATO ally. In just six months, that measure grew by 5%.

And here's the most interesting finding: Among Americans who initially said they would support a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, nearly one in five changed their minds when they learned how our European allies are stepping up their commitments to collective defense.

I'm happy to provide these findings to anyone in Washington who still bets against the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance. But the American people, who already understand the stakes, may not be so patient.

They're telling anyone who will listen that when they say peace through strength, they mean what President Reagan meant:

Leading with moral clarity… and distinguishing clearly between aggressors and victims.

Investing in the Arsenal of Democracy… and equipping friends who fight for themselves.

Preparing to win wars… And upholding the alliances that deter them.

Permalink: https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/1/mcconnell-threatening-force-in-greenland-can-shatter-the-trust-of-our-allies