Arctic showdown Did Trump and NATO actually reach a deal?

The statement by U.S. President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte about a “framework agreement on Greenland,” made following their meeting on the sidelines of the Davos forum, has become one of the most discussed topics on the international agenda.

According to open-source information, the agreement envisions an increased presence of the U.S. and NATO in the Arctic zone — ranging from infrastructure modernisation to the deployment of new air defence elements. The central component is the “Golden Dome” project, an early-warning system capable of integrating into the North Atlantic Alliance’s overall defence network. Washington views Greenland as a key link in this chain: the island’s location between North America and Europe makes it an ideal site for controlling airspace and maritime routes.

Experts note that the new security architecture is intended not only to strengthen defence but also to contain the growing influence of Russia and China in the region. Moscow is actively developing Arctic infrastructure and modernising its icebreaker fleet, while Beijing is increasingly asserting itself as an “almost Arctic power.”

For the American side, this step appears as a logical continuation of the “return to the Arctic” strategy. After several years of relative lull, the Pentagon is increasing its activity in the northern seas, reviving bases in Alaska, and strengthening intelligence operations in polar regions. This concerns not only military presence but also control over future Arctic routes and resources that are becoming accessible due to melting ice.

On 21 January, Trump devoted a significant part of his speech at the Davos forum to Greenland, emphasising that he considers the island part of North America and an important element of global security. He called for “immediate negotiations” on its acquisition, arguing that the U.S. is better able to ensure the territory’s protection than other countries. Although the president officially stated that he would not use military force to achieve this goal, he issued a stern warning to Europeans: “You can say ‘yes’ (to the proposal to transfer the island to the U.S.—Ed.), and we will be very appreciative, or you can say ‘no’ and we will remember.” Earlier, Trump had also threatened to impose additional tariffs on countries that do not support Washington’s claims to Greenland.

However, following the aforementioned meeting with Rutte, the U.S. president announced that he would not impose tariffs on European goods.

Nevertheless, the term “framework agreement” raised questions in Europe and, as one might expect, particularly in Denmark, of which Greenland is an autonomous territory. The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, stated that NATO does not have the authority to negotiate issues concerning the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland. At the same time, she emphasised her readiness to discuss security and cooperation in the Arctic with allies, including the “Golden Dome” project, provided that such discussions occur “with respect for the territorial integrity” of the kingdom.

Setting aside this minor diplomatic hiccup, things are so far shaping up reasonably well for Europe. Mark Rutte, known for his skill in dealing with the U.S. president, apparently deemed it necessary to step in to assure Trump that Europe is ready for dialogue. It is highly likely that the U.S. will now “re-coordinate” the agreement with Copenhagen.

It is still unclear, however, whether Trump has completely abandoned the idea of acquiring Greenland. So far, he has only renounced the use of force and, additionally, the idea of imposing tariffs on Europeans at this time. The possibility of a methodical pursuit of the deal for the island’s sale cannot be ruled out.