Table of Contents
Unravelling and analysing Trump’s deal with Greenland is an interesting exercise. It’s a bit like doing a jigsaw: the deal has many pieces to it. But there is a difference: with an ordinary jigsaw, it’s simply a matter of where the pieces fit. But, with a Trump jigsaw, you’re never sure how many pieces there are or where exactly they fit. It’s not until the deal is done that the pieces and fit become apparent.
At the outset Trump told us he wanted Greenland for security reasons. He was determined to get it the easy way, through Denmark and Greenland acquiescing to his demands, or the hard way – which could include the use of military force. The other pieces were minerals, Russia, China, climate change (in which he doesn’t believe) and NATO. So where do these fit into Trump’s basic jigsaw of Greenland strategy?
Having tried to understand the man (no easy task), I thought I knew him pretty well. Not so. Take his opening statement introducing force as an option to just walk in and seize a country. Even I (as a Trump supporter) was not prepared to go along with such an outrageous proposition. Had he done that he would have destroyed any argument against China seizing Taiwan. Why not sit down and have dialogue? There was no need for a Venezuelan-type operation: there was no tyrannical leader to drag from his bed in the middle of the night.
We were hoodwinked into a mistaken belief. It was never about real estate or about acquiring the whole island, and it was never about tariffs. Trump was using this talk for leverage. For Trump, this was not about just a straight deal between Denmark and the USA. There were ulterior motives. And this is where the other pieces in the jigsaw fit.
First up is NATO. Similar to threatening to invade Greenland, Trump has, from time to time, threatened to leave the organisation. He does this to exert pressure on it to pull its weight. He did it last year to get members to increase their defence budgets. In Greenland’s case, it was for a different reason. NATO has regarded itself as more of a passive force than an active one and Trump wanted that to change. Greenland presented the perfect opportunity. If anything was likely to move them from passive to active, it would be one member state threatening an attack on another. It worked.
NATO countries swung into action. They sent personnel and military hardware to Greenland and were quick to criticise Trump. They were firmly, and quite correctly, in Denmark’s camp. The media, salivating at the chance to demonise Trump, started forecasting the breakup of NATO. Even Starmer managed to locate his spine and gave Trump a blast over the phone. Trump would likely have been sitting in the Oval Office very pleased with himself while seeing his plan working.
What happened next? Mark Rutte, the former prime minister of the Netherlands and currently Secretary-General of NATO immediately saw the writing on the wall from a NATO perspective. Knowing that NATO cannot operate effectively without America, he immediately sought a meeting with Trump. Rutte, a pragmatist, is largely on the same page as Trump when it comes to the umbrella workings of NATO. The two men have a very amicable relationship. Trump and Rutte did the deal without input from anyone else, including Denmark and Greenland. A more or less fait accompli was presented.
So, what consequences flowed from this.
First, Trump, with agreement from Rutte, has turned NATO into an active rather than a passive force. That is good for NATO. The world is becoming increasingly dangerous and NATO, to be effective, had to change. It will now, along with America, actively contribute to the defence of Greenland and the greater Arctic region. This is as it should be. Trump has argued relentlessly that NATO needs to step up both economically and practically. Now it is.
Second, most of Greenland remains a Danish territory. Again, as it should be. America will expand its military presence through more bases and installations. Those areas will be sovereign to America. NATO will also have a permanent presence on the island – an active NATO. America will invest huge amounts of money in Greenland’s domestic economy. This is a win-win for everyone involved, plus the Arctic region as a whole.
Third, there are geopolitical issues at play, exacerbated by the dreaded climate change, to the extent that some sea ice is melting. This is opening up more shipping lanes, giving Russia and China increasing access to the area and new avenues for possible attacks. The agreed framework provides a blocking mechanism to these ambitions. Russia has been fortifying its northern coast – testing hypersonic missiles that can traverse the polar route to reach North American targets in minutes. America has felt exposed and the Arctic framework addresses this vulnerability, hence the need for military expansion on Greenland.
China has been aggressively courting Greenland and other northern nations with offers of financial investment, hoping to build a polar Silk Road. They also want the minerals and the shipping routes. Trump’s move is a direct checkmate to those aspirations. By bringing Greenland firmly under the America/NATO security umbrella, Washington is legally and physically shutting China out. It is thought no Chinese money will be allowed into Greenland. This is economic warfare disguised as security cooperation. America is saying if you want to be part of the Western security architecture, then you must cut your economic dependence on Chinese supply chains.
Fourth, minerals. Greenland has the world’s largest underdeveloped deposits of the minerals that America is reliant on China to provide. China could flick the switch and cut off supply at any time. Through the Arctic framework, Trump has secured a supply line that bypasses Beijing. He has effectively integrated Greenland’s mineral resource wealth into America’s industrial base, treating the island’s geology as a national security asset of the United States.
On the domestic front, this is a massive win for Trump. He can stand before the American people and say he has brought them further protection. This is likely to go down well with his MAGA base, who are largely anti-war and pro-peace. His tough talk on diplomacy is bearing results. A mineral pipeline is secure and jobs will be created for American workers in Greenland.
From a European perspective, governments, particularly Germany and France, have dodged potentially crippling tariffs on their economies. The price they are paying is that they accept they are junior partners in an American-led grand strategy. The reality is they themselves are better protected under the new America/NATO framework, which can operate in any sphere of joint influence.
This then is the deal and it solves a number of problems. NATO is reformed, repurposed and re-energised; the Arctic region is secured, America has access to the minerals it needs, threats from Russia and China have been largely nullified, Denmark retains possession of Greenland, which stands to prosper from further American investment, and European countries have avoided tariffs and are now part of a better prepared and resourced defence alliance. Trump wanted all of these things out of the deal and he got every one.
The left are understandably describing it as a ‘back down’, citing Trump’s failure to take over the country. That’s their narrative and, as usual, it’s wrong. The truth is he is making the world a safer place and ensuring the West is defensively better positioned should, God forbid, World War III ever eventuate. He is boxing Russia and China in.
You can say what you like about Trump but the fact is no other politician on the planet would have been capable of doing what he has just done. He is, without doubt, the master of the deal. You may not like him as a person but giving yourself a chronic case of TDS instead of recognising the benefits of what he is doing is an exercise in stupidity. Most politicians talk, but Trump acts and forces others in similar positions to act with him. That is for the common good and those who refuse to acknowledge that are simply in denial.
Trump the peacemaker is doing everything in his power to ensure that peace is a permanent reality. He is reducing conflagrations (wars) to small fires (skirmishes). He’s not using military force (guns and tanks), but economic force (tariffs and sanctions) to achieve his goals. He should be applauded, not demonised.
