The Greenland drama is over. I wrote this sentence and asked myself, was it a drama or a comedy? Probably both are correct, depending on the angle of view. So, what was that? What we were watching was not grand strategy at all. In a nutshell, it was the theater of coercion performed against friends, in pursuit of what the treaty text already provides, followed by an inevitable retreat when allies refuse to play the victim.
To substantiate this conclusion, let us start with the legal and historical baseline. In 1951, the United States and Denmark signed an agreement, pursuant to NATO defense planning, that explicitly preserved Danish sovereignty while giving Washington broad operational authority inside agreed defense areas. The agreement says that, without prejudice to Denmark’s sovereignty and the natural right of Danish authorities to free movement throughout Greenland, the United States is entitled within a defense area to fit it for military use, build and operate facilities, station personnel, provide internal security, and control landings, takeoffs, and movements of ships and aircraft, along with related infrastructure improvements. In addition, the agreement recognizes free access and movement between defense areas through Greenland, by land, air, and sea, under mutually agreed rules, and explicitly allows the making and furnishing of surveys, including U.S. technical and engineering surveys, in coordination with Danish authorities.
However, there is more to it. On August 6, the 2004 Igaliku amendment was signed under President George W. Bush. The 2004 agreement formally recognized that Thule Air Base is the only defense area in Greenland, clarified that NATO SOFA rules supersede the old 1951 exclusive jurisdiction clause, and added structured local consultation, including that the United States will consult with and inform Denmark and Greenland prior to significant changes to U.S. operations or facilities. This is normal intergovernmental cooperation among independent and friendly countries.
The 2004 package also included a joint declaration on economic and technical cooperation. It explicitly calls for broad cooperation between the United States and Greenland in research, technology, energy, environmental issues, education, tourism, air traffic planning, and trade, and it establishes a Joint Committee to coordinate, monitor existing programs, and agree on new or enhanced joint projects, subject to funding approval and national procedures. There is also an environmental declaration recognizing the vulnerability of the Arctic environment and establishing mechanisms to identify and address environmental risks, while referencing standards and information exchange.
That is the key point a serious statesman would start from. When you already possess legally grounded access, you do not need to flirt with annexation fantasies, nor do you need tariff threats or military insinuations. You negotiate upgrades, clarify procedures and expand cooperation. You do it with discretion, because discretion is the lubricant of alliances.
President Trump started with the wrong premises, outright lies, and annexation rhetoric that is unacceptable in a democratic republic. He stated that neither Greenland nor Denmark can defend Greenland from Russia and China. Well, they realized that and joined NATO. They are not supposed to defend themselves alone. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is the collective defense principle, the premise that an armed attack against one ally is considered an attack against all, triggering mutual assistance. Thus, in addition to the “two sleds,” Greenland also has state-of-the-art carriers, fifth-generation aircraft, submarines, and even nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, can the United States alone defend Greenland from the combined forces of Russia and China? Or is it better to rebuff their contest in the Arctic through NATO, rather than alone? The truth is, if one seriously suggests that Russia and China could become united hostile adversaries of the USA, the logical inference is that the NATO alliance would be an asset, not a liability.
Then, President Trump questioned the legality of Denmark’s ownership of Greenland. He implied that a ship moored 500 years ago is not a valid claim to ownership. First of all, it was not 500 years ago. Secondly, Denmark can at least claim a kind of Lockean initial appropriation by mixing labor and land. In contrast, the United States has no historically valid claim at all. Trump’s national security claim is pathetically weak and politically dangerous, as it indirectly legitimizes Putin’s attempt to conquer Ukraine and undermine NATO’s alliance.
The overall picture looks unappealing. Trump threatened allies, dramatized relationships that already provided the American military with access to necessary facilities, and then, after facing resistance, returned to the same diplomatic path that existed before he started stirring up conflict. Denmark, Greenland, and the United States are now discussing updating the 1951/2004 agreements, and Danish officials are calling for a calm process that removes the drama. That calm process is what should have happened first.
And here is where we can see a comedy. A man could have walked through the front door. Instead, he tried to kick down the wall, but ended up, predictably, standing outside the same door, asking to open it. TACO was served ice-cold, and everyone saw it.