By Mikkel Schøler, CEO Sikki
In Washington, on Wednesday, 23 September, the President of the United States stood alongside Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the Prime Minister of Kalaallit Nunaat – Greenland, and Danish Prime minister Mette Frederiksen, while the US leader praised the partnership deal which the three countries had just struck.
A deal so good that the president didn’t mention, at all, his previous ramblings about annexing Greenland.
And the deal was more or less perfect seen from a Greenlandic and Danish perspective. In fact, the deal is a total capitulation by the US president.
But why then, would Trump sing the praises of the deal, and ‘the wonderful people of Greenland and Denmark’?
To understand the process, we first need to understand the original objective was not security – it was territorial expansion.
Grabbing Greenland, Grabbing Resources
Threatening to annex Greenland was not merely a ploy to force Greenland and Denmark to the negotiating table. In fact, the deal signed could probably have been negotiated easily within the existing framework of the Joint Committee established under the Defense Agreement of 1951 between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark.
The threat was real, because the objective was real.
When Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, it disclosed his actual ambitions. The risk of military invasion and annexation was very real too – to the great dismay of not only Greenland and Denmark, but probably to all the countries which rely on security guarantees from the US in any shape or form.
And of course, most of all NATO countries.
The object was resource access. Greenland has known deposits of almost any imaginable mineral, including rare earth elements, which makes it attractive to the current US administration. Access to alternative resource supply chains outside of China is a prerequisite to the Sino-American economic decoupling which the US administration strives for.
However, Greenlandic resources may not be financially competitive in a market dominated by Chinese-based and -controlled resources, as China has an incentive to subsidize their supply chain to keep competing supply chains out of operation.
Which is why the US needed control of Greenland.
Military bases were always simply a justification, with a kernel of truth in it. The real reason was the need to create a resource supply chain for US companies at lower-than-market-value cost.
Invading Greenland is harder than it seems
The Danish defense response at the height of the crisis, when one of only two operating Virginia-class attack submarines was stationed in the waters off Nuuk – while the US military were engaged in or preparing to engage in Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, tells the full story of the US invasion plans.
Land special forces in Nuuk from a submarine, arrest the government and parliament, deploy an overwhelming force at the recently built airport, and you have de facto control of Greenland.
The threat to mine Greenlandic runways was a brilliant move by the Danish defence authorities, as it would be unfeasible to hold Nuuk with a small unsupported special force unit. And bringing in troops, transportation and supplies is very hard across such vast distances, unless you can send it by plane either directly or somewhere close enough that helicopters can get you the rest of the way.
With both Kangerlussuaq and Nuuk defended, using the next closest airport in Narsarsuaq would make it very hard to sustain an operation in a city of 20,000 people, of which a guesstimate says that at least half owns rifles and are skilled enough in their use to give snipers a run for their money.
Getting allied NATO countries to send personnel to Greenland, via Operation Arctic Endurance, increased the potential political cost of attempted annexation for the US, while ensuring against the total collapse of NATO and cross-Atlantic relations which would have followed a US invasion.
This was the reality in January, when Greenland and Denmark had a very tense and anticipated meeting with the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the American Vice President, JD Vance.
The Greenlandic and Danish delegation proposed establishing a working group of high-level officials that could try to solve what the Danish Foreign Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, described as a ‘fundamental disagreement‘.
In Danish media, the result of the meeting was described as ‘probably the most Danish thing ever’ with thinly veiled jocularity referring to the Danish parliamentary systems habit of referring touchy issues to committees that either come up with a useful solution or punt the ball for a time.
But stalling was not just a way of postponing the issue. It was key to achieving the incredible success that Greenland and Denmark managed.
Who blinks first?
With a de facto impasse, time was working for Greenland and Denmark. The longer negotiations were drawn out, the less US focus would be on Greenland.
For the US, time was very much working against the President and his territorial ambitions. While Trump has mooted the idea of canning the constitution and running for a third term, most observers believe that even the Republican Party-packed Supreme Court would draw a line there.
Which means that day-by-day, Trump’s time as a relevant political actor is running out. Something the Republican party is increasingly aware of with midterm elections coming up in November.
With the US war in Iran turning into an embarrassing, costly and deadly debacle, resulting in rising gas prices and collapsing approval ratings for Trump and polls for Republicans across the board, the US needed a win. Any win.
However, this only strengthened the Greenlandic and Danish negotiation position.
Which is why the deal is essentially a US capitulation.
The US blinked. Trump blinked.
The deal affirms Greenland’s right to independence, grants every EU member, every NATO member and every NATO partner, including Australia, Japan and South Korea, the right to invest in Greenland without US consultation or veto.
This is a list of every country that has the resources to invest in Greenland, barring Russia and China.
Which means that yes, Greenland has allowed the US to veto investments in Greenland by Russia and China, yet that was already an unwritten reality illustrated during the debates on the recently constructed and refurbished Greenlandic airports.
In reality, Greenland relinquishes the ability to leverage the US with promises of Chinese investments, but that is the extent of the Greenlandic concession.
As for bases, the US gets to operate a base at Mestersvig on the East Coast – far away from Nuuk. And will they be allowed to reopen the base (formerly Bluie West One) at Narsarsuaq – also far away from Nuuk.
The base positions make sense for the stated purpose of increasing security for the US and NATO, wanting to surveil the Greenland – Iceland maritime gap as part of the larger GIUK Gap in the North Atlantic, as well as act as a supply node for Atlantic and Arctic operations.
However, they are positioned sufficiently far from Nuuk that the ability to use them for invading Nuuk is very limited.
Additionally, the agreement stipulates that Greenlandic companies should hold all contracts to the widest extent possible for servicing and operating the US bases, while also recognising the rights of the Greenlandic people.
No more forced movement of Greenlandic citizens to make way for the bases. No more American facilities polluting Greenlandic hunting grounds and waters without a care.
All of this could most likely have been achieved without the massive loss of trust and esteem that the US has suffered.
So, why would Trump see this deal as a victory? Why would he even agree to it?
The Art of the Capitulation
Trump needed a win. Not after the November midterms. He needed it now. He knew it. Greenland and Denmark knew it.
The timing is the tell for what happened behind closed doors.
Trump capitulated. Greenland and Denmark got everything they could have only dreamed of in a fever fantasy back in January. And Trump got a win.
Well, he got the illusion of a win.
When Trump broke the news of the agreement on Truth Social on Friday, 18 September, he presented the agreement as much more than what was actually in the deal. ‘This is a dream come true for the United States…’, he wrote. And for five days afterwards, neither the Greenlandic nor the Danish governments corrected the president. Nor did any details of the deal leak to the public.
For five days, the right-wing US media could revel in the President’s successful completion of the agreement with Greenland and Denmark in the US Presidents unopposed words only.
And for five days, the populations of Greenland and Denmark held their collective breaths.
Then the agreement was signed and published in its entirety.
Which is when we all learned that Trump had capitulated. That his Truth Social post was at best a wild exaggeration.
Yet by then, for five days, Trump’s supporters and the target demographics of the Republican Party had already been told that the agreement was a dream come true. No number of facts could alter their perception of reality, and the news cycle was by then focused on the next hot topic.
The Greenlandic and Danish diplomacy deftly understood that Trump doesn’t actually care if he wins – he cares if people think he won.
And that was a small price to pay to achieve what few would have dreamed possible less than a year ago.
And while a deal with Trump is worth less than the paper on which it is written, the most important part of the Greenlandic and Danish win is probably more time.
Before any disagreements over this deal can arise in earnest, Trump will probably be nothing more than a chapter in history books and Greenland, Denmark and their partners in NATO and the EU will be able to dance less to the US tune, increasing the ability for Greenland to assert its interests and ambitions outside of US influence.
That is the Art of the Capitulation.
The Real Deal
Few commentaries and experts have picked up on what is perhaps the greatest result for Greenland in the entire deal – recognition.
Greenlandic independence has a quite unique history in the post-WWII decolonisation process, as most former colonies were colonies proper right up until the day they either were granted independence, or they rebelled and forced independence from their metropole.
Since 1979, Greenland has moved towards independence through a series of increasingly autonomous acts, kicking off with the Home Rule Act, ratified in 1979, followed by the Self Rule Act in 2009 that granted Greenland the right to full independence, if and when it should want it.
However, Greenland had not been standing still in between the two acts, nor has Greenland stood still since.
Rather, Greenland has built and sought to exercise increasing autonomy within the framework of the Danish Commonwealth to the point that it challenges both the Danish constitution and international frameworks as well.
While successive Danish administrations have found it hard to accommodate – or have even been reluctant to accommodate – the Greenlandic ambitions, under Prime Minister Frederiksen, Copenhagen has changed its tune.
This has been most visible in the Nordic Council, where Greenland and the Faroe Islands have fought – and continue to fight – to become independently recognised members in line with the current member states rather than participating under the Danish umbrella.
The issue of course being that neither Greenland nor the Faroe Islands are states, they are territories with a wide degree of autonomy within the Danish Commonwealth.
The agreement between the US, Greenland and Denmark not only enshrines the Greenlandic right to independence, but this deal also makes Greenland a signatory to an international agreement between states, and further stipulates the conditions under which the US will recognise a future independent Greenland.
For Greenland this is a massive victory, as the US pre-recognition of an independent Greenland allows the Greenlandic polity to continue working towards the independence that so many Greenlanders crave.
Just like in the case of the Nordic Council, none of this would have been possible for Greenland, had Denmark not fought for it.
The inclusive and proactive Danish approach to Greenland under Prime Minister Fredriksen has not only changed history for Greenland, it may also just be the foundational building block, on which Greenland and Denmark can build a lasting post-colonial relationship, allowing Greenland to one day enter the world community of independent states.
