Greenland rift makes NATO vulnerable to Russia, says senior German general

The dispute risks eroding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s power to deter enemies by undermining its cohesion, Lt. Gen. Alexander Sollfrank, head of the German armed forces Joint Force Command, said in an interview.

“The strength [of NATO] is ‘one for all, all for one.’ If that breaks, the core idea is gone," said Sollfrank. Cohesion is often referred to as the strategic center of gravity for NATO—its ability to act as one despite being made up of 32 countries.

That principle was last demonstrated after 9/11, he said, when Washington invoked Article 5, the alliance’s common defense clause, to rally NATO members to its campaign in Afghanistan. It was the first and last time Art. 5 was invoked.

Sollfrank, whose Joint Force Command is responsible for planning and conducting all German military operations, would play a key role in any conflict between NATO and Russia.

Germany’s top military brass normally refrains from commenting on international politics, but senior officers, including Sollfrank, have been blunt about the threat posed by Moscow. Sollfrank made headlines last year by warning that Russia could attack NATO at any time.

European leaders have condemned President Trump’s insistence that the U.S. should acquire Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of the kingdom of Denmark. Trump has threatened eight European nations with 10% tariffs starting Feb. 1 after the countries dispatched a small number of troops to the island over the weekend.

While Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said a forcible annexation of the island would mark the end of NATO, few European leaders have repeated the claim. Neither did Sollfrank, though he made it clear the alliance was facing one of its most perilous moments.

“We are all listening with concern to what is currently being discussed," he said. “Russia, which attacks us daily, is certainly a very interested observer of these current discussions."

Sollfrank said the U.S. rightly saw Greenland as strategically relevant, but that this applied to the entire trans-Atlantic alliance, not just North America. “NATO is not just in Europe; the Atlantic and the North Atlantic play a major role," he said.

Sollfrank said he didn’t believe Russia had the capacity to mount a broad offensive against NATO but that it was willing and able to provoke a cross-border skirmish targeting its easternmost members—possibly one of the Baltic States—with a view to changing the security architecture in Europe.

Such an attack would likely trigger Article 5, presenting allies with a decision over whether to come to the rescue of a member. If they didn’t, it would effectively end the alliance.

Germany, Sollfrank said, would “fight with everything we have."

Germany has been working on a secret document laying out a plan in the event of a Russian attack that would turn the country into a hub for ferrying nearly a million soldiers to the front.

Sollfrank said it could be activated overnight in case of war.

Germany has been passing new laws, striking agreements with neighboring countries and reinforcing bridges and railways, he said, all to allow the movement of troops, ammunition and hardware eastward.

“We are in delivery mode, not ordering mode. Hardware and ammunition are being delivered. We are practicing like crazy, including with the Americans. There is an incredible amount of activity. Russia should not believe we are weakened," he said.

A cease-fire in Ukraine wouldn’t necessarily diminish the threat posed by Russia, he said. On the contrary, Russia’s economy had been reshaped by war and Russian President Vladimir Putin needed the conflict to legitimize his rule and justify to the public about a million dead and wounded soldiers since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Still, he was scathing about Russia’s performance on the battlefield and rejected the argument—made by Russian leaders and some in the Trump administration—that Moscow was winning the war in Ukraine.

“The Russian forces fight with little inspiration, high losses, and target civilians. This is not heroic in the slightest. They advance at a snail’s pace while destroying their own soldiers," he said. “We used to talk about great Russian military thinkers…today, none of that is visible."

Asked whether NATO’s European members could repel a Russian foray without support from the U.S., however, Sollfrank refused to even consider the idea.

“That scenario does not exist for me," he said. “I firmly assume that we would stand together against a Russian attack."

Write to Bertrand Benoit at bertrand.benoit@wsj.com