2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, possible.

I look at this and then combine it with their completely unique (and controversial) approach on how they dealt with COVID and wonder if they are just 'wired' differently.

Or perhaps we have just gone softer ?

Their geo location probably demands a more real understanding of the world and its threats.

 

[Good2Golf]

Curious that the Swedes are the outlier in being the ones (or only ones that allowed a story like this to become public), preparing for these kinds of events.

The Poles just don’t announce it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I suspect because the Swedes are serious people who are prepared to have serious conversations.

Sweden has not had the benefit of a 140 year idyll where they got to pick and choose their wars.

The guys from Sweden with whom I used to work were called back to Sweden from Canada and the US every three to five years or so to drive S-tanks, fire BILLs and practice landing Viggens on their highways. Civil servants in critical tasks were drilled in managing enemies in the parking lots. Civil Defense drills and Home Guards at the docks were daily parts of their lives.

Despite history ending in the 90s most Swedes still remember that life. It isn't much of a reset for them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Germany turns to €3.4 billion Typhon and Tomahawk purchase to field 2,500-kilometer strike capability after U.S. cancels deployment

Germany is considering spending nearly €3.4 billion on U.S.-made Typhon launchers and Tomahawk cruise missiles, Politico reported, citing a government planning document.

defence-industry.eu

Reagan donated ground launched cruise missiles and crews to defend Germany.
Trump is selling ground launched cruise missiles for German crews to operate.

Same effect.

 

[QV]

Well looks like this matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

 

[brihard]

I feel like it’s gonna be fun comparing what Trump says to what Denmark says and to what the actual eventual agreement says.

 

[HavokFour]

I feel like it’s gonna be fun comparing what Trump says to what Denmark says and to what the actual eventual agreement says.

I get the feeling nothing has really changed from the 1951 agreement. He's probably just putting money back into the bases that were shuttered decades ago.

 

[brihard]

I get the feeling nothing has really changed from the 1951 agreement. He's probably just putting money back into the bases that were shuttered decades ago.

Yeah, probably this will be like some of us said, there’s already a treaty with more than adequate security provisions.

However I question Trump’s motives. I don’t believe this is about Russian military threat but rather about U.S. continental hegemony. Greenland as a defensive posture makes sense only in the context of deterring Russia. Yet Trump’s… let’s say solicitude to Russia over Ukraine’s sovereignty is inconsistent with that sort of Russian primacy within U.S. security concerns.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Yeah, probably this will be like some of us said, there’s already a treaty with more than adequate security provisions.

However I question Trump’s motives. I don’t believe this is about Russian military threat but rather about U.S. continental hegemony. Greenland as a defensive posture makes sense only in the context of deterring Russia. Yet Trump’s… let’s say solicitude to Russia over Ukraine’s sovereignty is inconsistent with that sort of Russian primacy within U.S. security concerns.

With this news I can’t help but thinks of this song….

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

With lots of reopened US bases in Greenland we’ve become ‘bookended’

 

[Good2Golf]

I’m looking forward to reading the ‘new deal’ and seeing how similar it is to the 1951 Agreement…I suspect that correlatively, r≈1.0

 

[Blackadder1916]

From the Danish PM's office

https://twitter.com/x/status/2101063203862057308

Can't read Dansk.

Expected agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area

english.stm.dk

Press release

Expected agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area​

• 9/18/2026

Greenland, Denmark, and the United States are expected to sign an agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area next week.

The three governments are expected to sign the agreement at the UN General Assembly. Following signature, the agreement will enter into force subject to the necessary national parliamentary procedures.
Chairman of Naalakkersuisut Jens-Frederik Nielsen:

”It is encouraging that we are about to make an agreement that will ensure and strengthen the security of Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark, the United States, and the Western Alliance. The agreement recognizes Greenland’s interests and our place in the international cooperation. It is to the benefit of us all.”

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen:

”I am glad that we are about to make a great agreement for Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark, and the United States. An agreement which strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area and therefore is great for NATO and Europe as well. And an agreement which at the same time recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.”

There are no further comments at this time.

For further information:
The communications department at the Government of Greenland [email protected].
The press and communications department at the Prime Minister’s Office +45 29 10 88 25.

This has also been reported. Coincidence?

Army chief says Denmark is ready to permanently station combat soldiers in Greenland | Sweden Herald

The Danish Armed Forces are ready to permanently station combat-ready soldiers in Greenland, according to Army Chief Peter Boysen

swedenherald.com

Army chief says Denmark is ready to permanently station combat soldiers in Greenland​

The Danish Armed Forces are ready to permanently station combat-ready soldiers in Greenland, according to Army Chief Peter Boysen.

"It is highly relevant that we continue to be there, he told TV 2."

Danish army soldiers have been on temporary exercises in Greenland since January, and in August a group of conscripts was stationed on the island. The navy has also long had dog sled patrols with a smaller number of military personnel.

But the army now has the resources to expand its presence with a permanent battle group, according to Peter Boysen, who emphasizes that it is ultimately up to politicians to make such a decision.

"The terrain and climate are so different compared with Denmark that if we ever have to go there and solve a critical task, it is important that we have the knowledge and training to operate there, he told TV 2."

And a slightly deeper analysis from The Atlantic

The Greenland Fiasco Stumbles to an End

President Trump announced an agreement that appeared to satisfy all parties but came at a great cost.

www.theatlantic.com

https://archive.ph/Kn1dr (non paywall)

 

[PPCLI Guy]

However I question Trump’s motives. I don’t believe this is about Russian military threat but rather about U.S. continental hegemony.

That may be true in Trump's addled brain. It s conceivable that hegemony and the Donroe Doctrne is what he is being told....

Having said that, the US already had nearly total basing and overflight rights under the 1951 treaty. What seems to be new (based on what has been announced so far) are:

• the deal would survive Greenlandic independence
• limits miltary presence to NATO member, and
• an investment-screening veto

It looks very much like a face-saving off-ramp for both sides. Moreover, announcing it now could be construed as a distraction from the looming and potentially disastrous midterm and the war with Iran.

 

[Good2Golf]

• limits military presence to NATO member

Trump’s take in the agreement:

[Trump] added that US adversaries will be barred from establishing military bases or stationing personnel in Greenland unless they receive written authorisation from the US.

If Trump determined that Canada was being adversarial and block them and he also wanted to let Putin conduct friendship exercises on Greenland, the agreement would appear to support it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It's not what Trump says that matters, it's what the wording of the Agreement is.

If it is as PPCLI Guy indicates above, then the US can't limit NATO countries from operating there, nor can it be used by the US to "invite" a non NATO country. On the other hand, the US would have a veto on investment by non NATO countries in the development of natural resources.

Even if the sole real effect of this agreement is that the Greenlandic people bound themselves to the same terms of the already existent 1951 agreement with Denmark should they elect to become fully independent, that is a fair closing of a potential gap in their defense agreements portfolio for the US.

All the drama that led there was, however, unnecessary and an important weakening of the US diplomacy.

 

[Good2Golf]

OGBD, I suspect you’re right, certainly in principle.

We’ve already achieved “‘The Onion’ is more accurate than most mainstream news” phase, and now we have Witkoff and Kushner coming back from Moscow saying Ukraine needs to be more conciliatory in resolving their aggression against Russia…so…here we are…

 

[PPCLI Guy]

On reflection, the fact that the deal remains in place if Greenland secedes from Denmark may be an indicatator of the "long play".

Project 2025 wasn't written for Trump. It is more like a fifth column manifesto to remake the US and the world. It has objectives and patience. Trump has neither.

This is why the removal of Trump will not be close to enough to stop the remodelling of America.

My opinion is that this is a bad thing. My opinion matters not one jot. We are all along for the ride whether we want to be or not

 

[Good2Golf]

This is why the removal of Trump will not be close to enough to stop the remodelling of America.

My opinion is that this is a bad thing. My opinion matters not one jot. We are all along for the ride whether we want to be or not

Yup, anyone who thinks that things will stabilize when Trump moves on, up or down, is fooling themselves.

 

[brihard]

Yup, anyone who thinks that things will stabilize when Trump moves on, up or down, is fooling themselves.

The erratic swings will decrease in amplitude and day to day management will become a bit easier with less squandered effort, but the overall trajectory won’t change much, and will remain net bad.