The outline deal struck by Mark Rutte and Donald Trump to step up Nato’s presence in the Arctic – so long as it does not undermine the sovereignty of Greenland or Denmark – has been available to the US for some time, but it will require new resources being devoted to the central task of monitoring Russian ship movements in the region.
What remains in question is whether the deal will stick given Trump’s erratic behaviour, and whether it gives the US president the access to Greenland’s critical minerals as he claims it does. The issue of a multibillion-dollar “Golden Dome” defence shield potentially being partly housed in Greenland also remains unresolved.
That leaves the agreement in a fragile state. Over the past year Trump has launched endless impetuous confrontations with maximalist demands, only to back down and then relaunch the fight weeks later, so it is quite possible he is only midway through this exhausting process.
Aware of Trump’s volatility, the UK, which played a key role in reaching the agreement by pressing for Nato to do more in the Arctic, was not crowing over Trump’s U-turn, but instead was agreeing that Chinese and Russian fleets did pose a new threat in the high north.
The UK foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, explained why the proposal for a Nato-led “Arctic sentry” made sense. The idea is modelled on two existing sentries set up by Nato in 2025. The Baltic sentry is overseeing the monitoring of undersea sabotage in northern Europe, while the eastern sentry is designed to protect Poland from Russian drone incursions.
The Arctic sentry discussed at successive Nato meetings in January is one that the UK and the German defence minister, Boris Pistorius, have been promoting inside the alliance for some weeks. They had been unable to gain US agreement as Trump was demanding much more, including full ownership of Greenland, as the only way to protect American security interests from the threat posed by China and Russia.
Some Nato states have been wary of the Arctic sentry concept on the basis that no imminent threat from Russian shipping exists. But the reconnaissance mission by eight Nato states last week – the mission that led to Trump’s objection and the threat to impose tariffs – was designed to assess the real scale of the Russia problem and the feasibility of setting up a monitoring mission.
Trump, misinformed, thought the mission was to prepare European defences for a US move to seize Greenland by force. Both the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, and UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, rang the president to gently disabuse him. Detail has never been Trump’s forte, as demonstrated by his muddling of Greenland with Iceland throughout his Davos speech.
In a sign that Denmark does not believe any red line has yet been crossed, the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, sounded calm about the meeting between Rutte and Trump, saying she had spoken to the Nato chief both before and after the meeting, and adding that the military alliance was “fully aware” of Copenhagen’s position.
Rutte – who Trump said had been given licence to negotiate on behalf of Denmark – said the topic of sovereignty did not come up in the discussions.
The 1951 agreement between the US and Denmark, updated in 2004, is clear that whatever the US does inside its Greenland bases, the territory they are on remains sovereign Danish land.
Although there have been claims that the new framework to which Trump has agreed is modelled more closely on the UK bases in Cyprus, that would be surprising since that land is treated as UK sovereign territory governed by the UK Ministry of Defence. As many as 20,000 Cypriots live on the sovereign UK territory, and have rights to pass property on to family or sell it to a third party.
One of the two main outstanding issues is whether, as Trump claims, the deal gives the US access to critical minerals in Greenland. That would not be an issue that a Nato secretary general would be permitted to negotiate, but Trump insisted he had secured the concession in the talks.
A second US demand surrounded the planned $175bn Golden Dome defence system, a futuristic weapon designed to shoot down hypersonic, ballistic and advanced cruise missiles and drones even if they are launched from the other side of the world or from space. Trump has repeatedly said full US ownership of Greenland is vital for this project to proceed.
No contracts for this project have been issued, but the bulk of the shield would not be land-based but operated by satellites. The main land-based interceptor site considered so far was in New York state. Frederiksen says she is open to discussing this project. The US already has a “space base” in Danish territory, known as Pituffik – formerly Thule airbase – which houses a substantial part of the US military’s global network of missile warning sensors.
The 1951 agreement focuses more on ports, but gives the US licence “to construct, install, maintain and operate facilities and equipment including meteorological and communication facilities and equipment”. It also allows “the US to construct such facilities and undertake such activities therein as will not impede the activities of the Kingdom of Denmark”.
Partly because Trump primarily operates through broad-brush social media posts, a detailed explanation of why ownership of Greenland was vital for the Golden Dome has never been given in public by the US administration.
The treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said at Davos: “It’s strategically important for his Golden Dome project to protect the US. He [Trump] has invited Canada into that if they want to pay their fair share. It’s important the US has control of Greenland and that will stop any kind of a kinetic war. So why not preempt the problem before it starts?”
Instead, the only kinetic war Trump launched was with his European allies. For the moment, at least, there is now a truce.
