2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[HavokFour]

A quick google search shows some of the new changes, which seem to align with what the Trump administrations strategic goals are in a lot of other spaces (highlighted):


The new 2026 agreement between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland largely builds upon the foundational 1951 defense treaty, but introduces formal updates regarding future independence, unilateral military expansion, and strict economic blocks against geopolitical adversaries. [1, 2, 3]

What Stayed the Same

• • Basic U.S. overflight and basing rights.
  • Prohibition of non-NATO military bases.
  • Greenland remains a territory under the Danish realm. [1, 2]

What Changed in the New Deal

• • Post-Independence Continuity: The agreement explicitly states the pact will not expire even if Greenland gains independence from Denmark. [1]
  • Unilateral Building Rights: Reports indicate the U.S. gains power to build new military structures without prior approval from Greenland or Denmark. [1]
  • Critical Mineral Investment Bans: The new framework explicitly blocks adversaries like China and Russia from investing in sensitive mining and critical mineral sectors. [1, 2]
  • Formal Investment Screening: It introduces strict investment screening tools to prevent non-allies from gaining economic leverage on the island. [1, 2]

Despite all the haranguing on this subject, it seems to be a win for the USA.

"Unilateral building rights" is somewhat off the mark.

ii. The United States shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig in accordance with modalities and technical details to be mutually agreed by the Parties;

iii. The United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland and strengthen its military operations or facilities. Either Party may identify the need for a new Defense Area for the defense of the North Atlantic Treaty area, Greenland, and the American continent. Such Party shall provide a proposal describing the location, scope, size, and types of activities of the proposed Defense Area as well as other modalities such as mitigating measures, including those necessary to take account of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2004 Joint Declaration. The Parties shall immediately convene to engage in consultations through the Permanent Committee to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement. If no agreement is reached within 90 days at the Permanent Committee, consultations shall escalate to the deputy minister level, followed by the minister level;

V.

Unmanned military installations

The Kingdom of Denmark together with Greenland shall review requests to establish unmanned military installations in Greenland outside of the Defense Areas under accelerated governmental approval procedures. The request shall include a proposal describing the location, scope, size, and types of activities of the proposed unmanned military installation, as well as other modalities such as mitigating measures, including those necessary to take account of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2004 Joint Declaration. Article IV(iv.) of this Agreement shall apply to the establishment, maintenance, and servicing of such unmanned military installations.

 

[lenaitch]

CP, I don't think those edits would be as successful as the original, especially in the near term. Leveraging the worlds largest market maximally now, enabling internal trade to the greatest extent now, and creating the conditions for export markets to grow as our prosperity grows is in my opinion a better option. Focusing on total continental security now makes us far more powerful and richer, which then allows us to better support our other allies.

Trying to shore up bits and pieces with the EU, China, UK, and a host of other nations in little dribs and drabs might feel like "sovereignty", but would take decades. If that comes at the expense of an improved relationship with the US it is ultimately making us weaker.

Alternatively, we buy in with some concessions now, become far more prosperous and use the in-between time to shore up our position (export infra) so when the next round comes we are actually stronger and with options, and we are no longer 10-20 years away from being able to move to other markets like we are now. We'd have leverage that we don't now have.

Every negotiation implies concessions - by both parties. Since none of us here know what the actual terms we walked away from are, and since we have not been the aggressor (walking away from CUSMA, verbally threatening our sovereignty, etc.), I'll believe that the concessions demanded by the US were not reasonable.

Act like a serious, mature, world power instead of a paranoid xenophobe.

If we decided to sell to an adversary

Not every other country is an adversary, except in the transactional world of Trump USA

The entire rhetoric of your posts, especially the Fortress North America bit, has me convinced that you are typing from the basement of 490 Sussex Dr. or somewhere in Bejing or Moscow.

https://www.amazon.ca/Fortress-America-Embraced-Abandoned-Democracy/dp/1541646525

 

[QV]

The entire rhetoric of your posts, especially the Fortress North America bit, has me convinced that you are typing from the basement of 490 Sussex Dr. or somewhere in Bejing or Moscow.

https://www.amazon.ca/Fortress-America-Embraced-Abandoned-Democracy/dp/1541646525

Glad to read you are up to speed on things. The term Fortress North America has been used explicitly by PMMC and Premier Ford in economic and trade dealings with the US.

 

[Furniture]

A quick google search shows some of the new changes, which seem to align with what the Trump administrations strategic goals are in a lot of other spaces (highlighted):


The new 2026 agreement between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland largely builds upon the foundational 1951 defense treaty, but introduces formal updates regarding future independence, unilateral military expansion, and strict economic blocks against geopolitical adversaries. [1, 2, 3]

What Stayed the Same

• • Basic U.S. overflight and basing rights.
  • Prohibition of non-NATO military bases.
  • Greenland remains a territory under the Danish realm. [1, 2]

What Changed in the New Deal

• • Post-Independence Continuity: The agreement explicitly states the pact will not expire even if Greenland gains independence from Denmark. [1]
  • Unilateral Building Rights: Reports indicate the U.S. gains power to build new military structures without prior approval from Greenland or Denmark. [1]
  • Critical Mineral Investment Bans: The new framework explicitly blocks adversaries like China and Russia from investing in sensitive mining and critical mineral sectors. [1, 2]
  • Formal Investment Screening: It introduces strict investment screening tools to prevent non-allies from gaining economic leverage on the island. [1, 2]

Despite all the haranguing on this subject, it seems to be a win for the USA.

Apart from the fact Trump threatened annexation, and in doing so destroyed American credibility with many of it's closest allies...

So he created extreme distrust of America, (to the point nations deployed tripwire troops) to achieve something that could have been negotiated quietly and tactfully between Greenland, Denmark, and America. Some victory...

 

[KevinB]

Glad to read you are up to speed on things. The term Fortress North America has been used explicitly by PMMC and Premier Ford in economic and trade dealings with the US.

Correct.

Modifiers on POTUS’s FORTRESS AMERICA

 

[Halifax Tar]

A quick google search shows some of the new changes, which seem to align with what the Trump administrations strategic goals are in a lot of other spaces (highlighted):


The new 2026 agreement between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland largely builds upon the foundational 1951 defense treaty, but introduces formal updates regarding future independence, unilateral military expansion, and strict economic blocks against geopolitical adversaries. [1, 2, 3]

What Stayed the Same

• • Basic U.S. overflight and basing rights.
  • Prohibition of non-NATO military bases.
  • Greenland remains a territory under the Danish realm. [1, 2]

What Changed in the New Deal

• • Post-Independence Continuity: The agreement explicitly states the pact will not expire even if Greenland gains independence from Denmark. [1]
  • Unilateral Building Rights: Reports indicate the U.S. gains power to build new military structures without prior approval from Greenland or Denmark. [1]
  • Critical Mineral Investment Bans: The new framework explicitly blocks adversaries like China and Russia from investing in sensitive mining and critical mineral sectors. [1, 2]
  • Formal Investment Screening: It introduces strict investment screening tools to prevent non-allies from gaining economic leverage on the island. [1, 2]

Despite all the haranguing on this subject, it seems to be a win for the USA.

That sounds to me like vasselization...

 

[Retired AF Guy]

.... vasselization...

Sounds like some kinky sex act involving vaseline...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sounds like some kinky sex act involving vaseline...