Fragile Arctic Agreement Leaves Trump's Greenland Ambitions Unresolved
A detailed explanation of why ownership of Greenland was considered vital for the United States has never been publicly provided by the administration. This absence of clarity continues to overshadow recent diplomatic developments in the Arctic region.
The Davos Agreement: A Delicate NATO Truce
The outline deal struck between NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and US President Donald Trump late last night in Davos represents a fragile truce. The agreement focuses on stepping up NATO's presence in the Arctic, with the crucial condition that it does not undermine the sovereignty of Greenland or Denmark. This framework has been available to the United States for some time, but implementing it will require new resources dedicated to monitoring Russian ship movements across the region.
What remains in greater question is whether this agreement will endure given President Trump's erratic behaviour patterns. The US leader has demonstrated a consistent tendency to make maximalist demands, subsequently back down, and then relaunch confrontations weeks later. This pattern suggests the current agreement exists in a precarious state, with Trump potentially only midway through what has become an exhausting diplomatic process.
Unresolved Issues: Critical Minerals and Defence Systems
Two significant issues remain unresolved within this fragile framework. First is whether the deal actually provides the United States with access to Greenland's critical minerals, as President Trump has claimed. This would represent an unusual concession for a NATO secretary general to negotiate, yet Trump has insisted he secured this provision during discussions.
The second outstanding matter concerns the planned $175 billion Golden Dome defence system. This futuristic weapon system is designed to intercept hypersonic, ballistic, and advanced cruise missiles and drones, even those launched from the opposite side of the world or from space. Trump has repeatedly asserted that full US ownership of Greenland is essential for this project to proceed, though contracts have yet to be issued and the bulk of the shield would operate via satellites rather than land-based installations.
Historical Context and Sovereignty Questions
The existing 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark, subsequently updated in 2004, clearly establishes that while the US maintains significant operational freedoms within its Greenland bases, the territory remains sovereign Danish land. This arrangement allows American forces "to construct, install, maintain and operate facilities and equipment including meteorological and communication facilities and equipment" while ensuring these activities "will not impede the activities of the Kingdom of Denmark."
Some claims have suggested the new framework more closely resembles the arrangement governing UK bases in Cyprus, where territory is treated as sovereign UK land governed by the Ministry of Defence. However, this comparison appears problematic given the fundamentally different sovereignty arrangements between these situations.
International Diplomacy and Misunderstandings
The United Kingdom played a crucial role in reaching the agreement by advocating for enhanced NATO involvement in the Arctic. Aware of Trump's volatility, British officials avoided celebrating what appeared to be a presidential U-turn, instead emphasising consensus about the emerging threat posed by Chinese and Russian fleets in the high north.
UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper explained the rationale behind the proposed NATO-led "Arctic sentry" concept, modelled on existing sentries established in 2025. The Baltic sentry oversees monitoring of undersea sabotage in northern Europe, while the eastern sentry protects Poland from Russian drone incursions.
Misunderstandings have complicated negotiations. President Trump, apparently misinformed, believed a recent reconnaissance mission by eight NATO states was preparing European defences for a potential US move to seize Greenland by force. Both Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer contacted Trump to correct this misunderstanding. Further confusion arose during Trump's Davos speech when he repeatedly muddled Greenland with Iceland.
European Perspectives and Future Uncertainties
Some NATO member states have expressed wariness about the Arctic sentry concept, questioning whether an imminent threat from Russian shipping actually exists. The recent reconnaissance mission was specifically designed to assess both the scale of the Russian threat and the feasibility of establishing a NATO monitoring operation.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has maintained a calm public stance regarding the meeting between Rutte and Trump, indicating she does not believe any red lines have been crossed. She confirmed speaking with the NATO chief both before and after the discussions and emphasised the military alliance's full awareness of Copenhagen's position on sovereignty matters.
Secretary General Rutte himself insisted that sovereignty issues did not arise during negotiations, despite Trump's assertion that Rutte had been authorised to negotiate on Denmark's behalf.
Strategic Importance and Unexplained Rationales
Within the White House, ownership of Greenland has taken on an almost mystical significance, with the extension of US landmass becoming an objective in itself. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated at Davos that control of Greenland is "strategically important" for the Golden Dome project to protect the United States, suggesting it could prevent "kinetic war" through preemptive action.
Yet despite these assertions, a detailed explanation of why Greenland ownership is specifically vital for the Golden Dome system has never been publicly provided by the administration. This information gap leaves allies uncertain about American intentions and creates diplomatic vulnerabilities.
For now, the kinetic war Trump launched appears to have been with European allies rather than through military confrontation. The current agreement represents at least a temporary truce, though its fragility underscores the challenges of navigating Arctic security amid shifting geopolitical priorities and presidential unpredictability.
