A statement by 14 former officials in Democratic and Republican Administrations—including four NATO Ambassadors, 3 Assistant Secretaries of State for Europe, and 3 NSC Senior Directors
As a retired U.S. Navy sailor, I flew numerous missions out of Greenland during the Cold War. Additionally we operated out of Iceland and Norway. Contrary to Mr. Hegseth's opinion, our NATO allies have stood by the United States for years. There is more to being an allie then the percentage of GDP spent on defense. I have been hoping someone would standup and push back at Mr. Trump and his administration. I would like to praise those gentleman with the courage to put their name to paper. (I hope I haven't upset anyone. )
Great content and arguments, very useful, thank you. Since the main problem now is one of influence, my question is about your comms objectives and target audiences for maximum impact: winning over moderate Republican voters, influencing Republican congress/senators, deterring Trump and his senior administration, mobilising Democrat leaders? If so - how can you best reach them? For example, can a delegation be set up to go to the White House? Are members of Trump's family open to discussion? Are you meeting with senior Republican figures? Sorry - it's just that I'm curious how experts like yourselves with deep knowledge of the world, can best influence the situation.
It’s always a relief that Trump isn’t a real dictator (yet). Otherwise we probably wouldn’t have seen these strong statements of support from former American diplomats. Thanks! 🧡🙏
This statement correctly identifies alliances as force multipliers for capability, legitimacy, and deterrence. That logic has governed U.S. strategy for decades.
What’s changed is not the value of alliances, but the constraint they now operate under: coordination speed. As strategic, informational, and security timelines compress, legitimacy can no longer be stockpiled through history or precedent. It has to be continuously regenerated through aligned action.
That’s why Greenland becomes destabilizing even as a hypothetical. Not because alliances no longer matter but because unilateral signaling now propagates faster than alliance coordination can absorb. Until coordination capacity catches up with system tempo, even strong alliances will feel brittle under rhetorical stress.
As a retired U.S. Navy sailor, I flew numerous missions out of Greenland during the Cold War. Additionally we operated out of Iceland and Norway. Contrary to Mr. Hegseth's opinion, our NATO allies have stood by the United States for years. There is more to being an allie then the percentage of GDP spent on defense. I have been hoping someone would standup and push back at Mr. Trump and his administration. I would like to praise those gentleman with the courage to put their name to paper. (I hope I haven't upset anyone. )
Great content and arguments, very useful, thank you. Since the main problem now is one of influence, my question is about your comms objectives and target audiences for maximum impact: winning over moderate Republican voters, influencing Republican congress/senators, deterring Trump and his senior administration, mobilising Democrat leaders? If so - how can you best reach them? For example, can a delegation be set up to go to the White House? Are members of Trump's family open to discussion? Are you meeting with senior Republican figures? Sorry - it's just that I'm curious how experts like yourselves with deep knowledge of the world, can best influence the situation.
Thank you all for writing this letter. There are difficult times for the people in Greenland and Denmark. Thank you.
It’s always a relief that Trump isn’t a real dictator (yet). Otherwise we probably wouldn’t have seen these strong statements of support from former American diplomats. Thanks! 🧡🙏
This statement correctly identifies alliances as force multipliers for capability, legitimacy, and deterrence. That logic has governed U.S. strategy for decades.
What’s changed is not the value of alliances, but the constraint they now operate under: coordination speed. As strategic, informational, and security timelines compress, legitimacy can no longer be stockpiled through history or precedent. It has to be continuously regenerated through aligned action.
That’s why Greenland becomes destabilizing even as a hypothetical. Not because alliances no longer matter but because unilateral signaling now propagates faster than alliance coordination can absorb. Until coordination capacity catches up with system tempo, even strong alliances will feel brittle under rhetorical stress.
All these correct words and good arguments don't count in a place where there are no values, laws or rules and only money and power count!