A couple of hours before the agreement was signed on September 22, 2026, I published the following 13 hypotheses about what it would most likely contain on TFF Substack (in English).
I was wrong on only the first point. Contrary to what Trump had written on his Truth Social platform, it does not appear to come into force immediately. In fact, it turned out to be worse than even I had anticipated.
After these hypotheses now come a number of reflections in light of what the agreement actually contains, and does not contain, as well as the way in which it has generally been presented by major media outlets and by the public-service broadcaster DR.
My conclusion is that it is extremely misleading and analytically unsound to claim that this is a good agreement for all parties; that is simply how the governments wishes to sell it to the public. Media commentators with little or no expertise in security affairs are broadcasting this claim without conducting any substantive analysis of the agreement’s contents.
Rather, it represents a sell-out by Denmark and Greenland. Although it formally preserves Greenland’s right to self-determination and Denmark’s sovereignty, it entails a decisive surrender of freedom of action, both now and into an uncertain future.
This has been made possible by decades of Danish, increasingly near-total submission to the United States, to such an extent that it is no longer possible to speak of an independent and sovereign foreign and security policy in Copenhagen.
Now to the hypotheses as they stood before the agreement was signed:
21 years ago, I visited Greenland and published this book chapter, Balance the Igaliku Agreement With Peace Policy. As expected, there was no reaction from anyone in Greenland, Denmark or the US.
In February, TFF published A New Perspective and Blueprint: A Demilitarised Arctic for the Common Good — and Why It Is Rational. Same result.
And I have written three other articles. Same…
Everything peace is out, which is not because peace is wrong, but because militarism and kakistocracy run the West until it falls apart from that burden. So, some of us have to keep doing something different; after all, There Are Only Alternatives (TAOA) to war, militarism and short-term political deal-making by elites who couldn’t care less about the interests of the people they allegedly represent.
Today, the above-mentioned agreement will be signed, and none of us citizens knows anything about its content – except Trump saying it is great and he seems to get about all he wanted without paying a dime; the Danish PM and FM saying that this is a ‘good’ deal – and that it is because otherwise they would not sign it (!) because it preserves Danish sovereignty and the US will not buy Greenland as Trump suggested back in time. Greenland’s leader also says it is good because it preserves self-determination and respect.
The media – not the least in Denmark – do what parrots do and ask no critical questions or raise aspects that would likely make Danes and Greenlanders think a bit. Remember, it is so good for all parties involved!
Well, said the old peace professor with some experience in conflict resolution: See it to believe it!
- No debate whatsoever and probably no ratification in parliaments; it will be implemented right away.
- What will be published will be the official version with niceties; none of the details, because they pertain to security issues that cannot be revealed.
- It seems to give 100% decision-making power – or competence – to the US over everything related to security and security means also resources. So my hypothesis is that Denmark and Greenland put all their security eggs in the US basket – and where that ends is anyone’s guess.
- Some see this as a kind of natural extension of the 1951 agreement and the above-mentioned Igaliku Agreement. If it were, they could just be legally extended. Obviously, the truth it that this new agreement gives the US something it does not have today.
- So-called “rivals” of the US/parties will be excluded from Greenland, cannot invest, and cannot build bases. It means, de facto, non-cooperation with countries like Russia and China and others who have equally legitimate economic and security interests in the region. It means a confrontational attitude. Something like the rational cooperation to the benefit of all – and common security – mentioned above will be totally excluded. The region will be converted from a low-tension and low-militarised one to a high-tension area – I mean, wherever the US is, there is tension and “deterrence” of others who feel threatened.
- For the US under Trump, “security” very much means natural resource access. His major interventions are all about securing the future of what I call “The United States of Autarchy” for the future: Venezuela, Canada if he could, the resources outside Gaza, Iran/Hormuz, the deal with Ukraine and his wish to have a reasonable relation with the world’s most resourceful country, Russia
- Most media comments believe this is about Greenland – it is, but it is about the entire region, maritime presence, ballistic missile defence etc. – and Russia at least cannot but feel that as another pressure after the NATO expansion in Europe. So, there will be comprehensive effects on the wider region, the GIUK gap, submarine warfare, etc., around, if you will, Greenland.
- Most have also pointed to the possibility of new US bases. That is highly likely – but remember that it has already gotten 42 military bases in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. It has 600+ bases worldwide – but is the world a more peaceful place for that reason? Are the locals at all these points happy about these bases? Do they feel more secure? Well, we do not know because the locals whose lives are affected have never been asked or given the opportunity to vote for or against.
- Be sure that there won’t be a word about nuclear weapons in the published agreement text.
- Be sure that there won’t be a word about the environment.
- In terms of relative global status and capacities, the US is in obvious decline if compared to, say, the 1950/60s. It is today run by a President who is psychologically unstable and unpredictable. He runs history’s strongest military power that has lost every way since Vietnam in 1975. If this is your friend, the one you seek “protection” through, you have made zero scenarios about the future of the West and the rest of the world. And, thus, you’ll be in for surprises.
- Be aware that Trump has said on Truth Social – whether true or not – that he gets this fantastic deal with NO COSTS for the US. One wonders who will pay, then?
- Also whether true or not: He has stated that this is a forever agreement, not tied to NATO’s treaty, any renewal date, and we do not know whether anyone can legally withdraw from it should things not work out as expected.
In summary, my hypothesis – until proven wrong empirically – is that this is (or will in the future be reconsidered as) a day of tragedy for Greenland, Denmark and for the world.
What follows are reflections on the agreement after it was made public. It is worth reminding ourselves that we know nothing about any provisions of such a security-policy nature that they will not be disclosed.
*****
It was known that Trump was due to speak at the UN General Assembly and immediately afterwards sign the agreement with the other two parties. I shall refrain from commenting on the speech, except to say: perverse self-satisfaction/megalomania regarding his own achievements, coupled with vulgar pride in all the occasions on which the United States under his leadership has violated international law, threats directed at other countries (Cuba’s delegation stood up and walked out), and a threat to wipe out Iran.
It was probably one of the most unpleasant speeches in the history of the United Nations. It ought to give pause for thought that the leaders of Denmark and Greenland, during the signing ceremony, praised Trump and his America. The Prime Minister thanked him in a servile manner and then claimed that the United States has always defended the free world and contributed to peace.
Here is the agreement. Read it for yourself.
14. True enough, this is not a matter of the United States annexing or purchasing Greenland, nor of Denmark formally surrendering its sovereignty or Greenland its right to self-determination. However, it is something that in practice will be just as fundamental, and probably worse: the surrender of Danish and Greenlandic decision-making authority, together with a significant reduction in both parties’ freedom of action in security and foreign policy.
It is clear that nothing can be done in these areas without the consent of the United States. I put it this way because there is something that commentators and the parties involved fail to mention even once, namely that this is an asymmetrical relationship, or conflict situation. In precisely such a relationship, the United States effectively acquires a veto right. If Denmark and/or Greenland were now or in the future to wish to co-operate with another country on resources, bases, or other security-related matters that the United States could not accept in the region, it would simply not be possible.
By contrast, it is difficult to see how the two would be able to prevent the United States from effectively doing whatever it wishes: establishing more than the two new bases mentioned in the agreement, controlling and using the surrounding waters as it sees fit, and, as I hinted above, not a word is said about nuclear weapons. Nor is there any safeguard for Greenland’s unique environmental conditions. The United States has previously abandoned base areas filled with waste.
15. And it is not only the United States; it is NATO. NATO has of course already been an actor in the region in practice, but in future the Alliance will be able to play that role in far more far-reaching ways. That is why all three parties speak the same PR language: the agreement is excellent for all three parties, for Europe as a whole, and for NATO. That alone should be enough to arouse suspicion that something is being concealed outside the text of the agreement. A complete alignment of interests within these asymmetrical relationships is either deception or self-deception.
16. As mentioned above, the agreement is “for ever”. That means there is no provision for renewal, extension, or withdrawal. It is binding in perpetuity and, in practice, that means binding on the two weaker parties. The United States will be able to force through whatever it wishes; the other two cannot even threaten, should circumstances arise, to withdraw from the agreement. This is highly unusual in international agreements.
17. Equally incomprehensible is the fact that Denmark and Greenland have agreed not only that the agreement is permanent; they have also agreed to make Greenland a permanent member of NATO. This applies even if Greenland one day becomes an independent state. In that event, future leaders and citizens of an independent Greenland would be compelled to accept and implement NATO membership.
I am not an expert in international law, but those who are will probably be able to hold several seminars and write numerous reports on whether it is compatible with international law to bind Greenland, now and for all time, to NATO membership. A future independent Greenland could scarcely be described as a sovereign state under such an arrangement, even if it retains its own territory. That alone raises questions about the actual substance of the concept of self-determination.
18. We are dealing here with a classic dilemma. One school of thought would argue that this was the best outcome that could be achieved when a great power wants something from one or more small states. It would further argue that compliance brings greater protection and security, and that accepting reduced freedom of action is therefore reasonable.
Another school of thought would argue that such an agreement is the perfect way to ensure that the region is drawn into any future conflict at an early stage, and that every American base becomes a priority target for hostile powers. This school would also contend that preserving the greatest possible freedom of manoeuvre ought to be a top priority in foreign and security policy.
The sell-out by Denmark and Greenland is legitimised by the argument that they receive greater protection, perhaps even some influence over US policy, and that after Trump had declared so aggressively that he simply had to have Greenland, even by military means if “necessary”, then this agreement constitutes a brilliant piece of small-state diplomacy.
Personally, I see it, as suggested in hypotheses 8 and 11 above, as the result of decades of increasing submissiveness, a lack of independent capacity for security-policy analysis, and a degree of conformity in the media, politics, and academia so extensive that nobody appears to have asked the obvious question: why are we so frightened and so powerless in our relationship with our best friends and protectors that we cannot say no to anything this friend demands?
Several media reports indicate that the Danish participants were fearful and nervous throughout the entire process, from the moment Trump threatened to take Greenland through to concerns over whether he might say something inappropriate during the signing ceremony.
No one knows where they stand with Trump. He probably could have carried out his threat simply to seize Greenland by force. And yes, what the United States receives through this agreement resembles an old-fashioned Mafia tactic: an offer you can’t refuse.
“We shall have everything we need, but since we can obtain it without making Greenland a state of the USA, we shall allow you to retain the illusion of self-determination and sovereignty. We all know what the reality is, don’t we?”
Kissinger’s old observation that it may be difficult to be America’s enemy but fatal to be its friend is perhaps the most precise thing that can be said about this agreement. And that is where we have arrived because, in recent years, not a single creative thought has been devoted to alternatives to ever-closer co-operation and ever-diminishing de facto freedom of action vis-à-vis the United States, a state which, as noted under point 11, is indisputably in decline, is led by a president many have labelled a “psychopath” and a “proto-fascist”, and which we know has secured future access to resources by force. Moreover, we have no idea what sort of United States will emerge after his departure.
Neither Copenhagen nor Nuuk appears to have seen any warning lights here.
After all, there was not supposed to be so much as a sheet of A4 paper between the United States and its allies, as the Danish Prime Minister famously said on the way towards this eternal and boundless subordination to the free world’s and peace’s allleged number one guarantor.
19. It is therefore also striking, and recklessly dangerous, that there is no built-in mechanism for conflict resolution in this forever-agreement. Who, if not the United States, would get its way should the parties disagree?
This could become relevant from the very outset, during implementation of concrete projects, measures and processes, or at any point between now and eternity. Does anyone seriously believe that conflicting interests cannot arise within so complex a framework? Could the two smaller parties appeal to an international legal authority and prevail in a dispute? Would the United States comply with such a ruling?
Give Trump the deal-maker an inch, and we know how he will interpret it.
The questions about what is not said in the agreement are starting to pile up.
20. Trump wrote that the United States obtained this fantastic agreement at no cost. That may well be true, because the agreement says nothing about who will pay for all the new activities and access the United States acquires in Greenland.
The journalist and historian Eric Zuesse asked ChatGPT whether, based on similar agreements, it would be possible to make a rough estimate of what the rights acquired by the United States under this agreement might be worth. The answer was around 45 billion dollars. Remember Trump’s claim: NO COSTS.
More significantly, and even more problematically, the published agreement says nothing about how resource extraction and the anticipated profits from such resources are to be distributed.
This perpetual agreement says nothing whatsoever about how the three parties are to share revenues, nor how large Greenland’s share of the income should be. In other words, not a single word about how Denmark and Greenland would prevent a situation in which the winner takes it all.
Trump has said that the United States needs Greenland, and that NATO needs it, for security reasons, though without explaining precisely how access to Greenland’s resources enhances US security against whom or against what. In realpolitik terms, it will suffice for him, and for future presidents, simply to say: “This is required for our security.” Copenhagen and Nuuk will then be compelled to fall into line.
The agreement is eternal in time and all-encompassing in scope. Yet it says nothing about the allocation of costs and revenues between the three parties, nor even that such “details” are to be negotiated later.
That is another reason why so much diplomatic and PR effort is devoted to insisting that Denmark retains its sovereignty and Greenland its right to self-determination: Trump has received exactly what he wants now and for all future purposes.
Formalities such as sovereignty will play no meaningful role in how this agreement unfolds in and around Greenland in the future.
Here is what a simple AI-assisted inquiry can tell us about the value of Greenland’s resources:
“There is no single credible estimate of the total value of Greenland’s natural resources. Different studies include different combinations of proven reserves, estimated resources, and speculative deposits.
A rough estimate based solely on major identified resources points to a value in the lower range of several trillion US dollars.
Greenland is known to contain 25 of the EU’s 34 critical raw materials. It also contains 39 of the 50 minerals classified by the United States as critical.
The largest quantified resource is offshore oil and gas.
Estimates by the US Geological Survey suggest approximately 31 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) in technically recoverable hydrocarbons. At an illustrative oil price of around USD 70 per barrel, this corresponds to roughly USD 2.2 trillion in gross in-situ value. This is not an economic valuation, since extraction, transport and infrastructure costs would be substantial.
Greenland also possesses identified rare-earth reserves of approximately 1.5 million tonnes. Additional deposits include graphite, zinc, gold, copper and nickel.
Overall, a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate for Greenland’s proven and identified major resources is a few trillion US dollars.”
One must indeed wonder how many American trillions of dollars, and how much freedom of action for all time, Mrs Frederiksen and Mr Nielsen signed away through their signatures on this truly historic agreement.
21. Internationally, media interest has been surprisingly limited, given the agreement’s wider global significance. Unsurprisingly, NATO leaders have reportedly welcomed it as a positive agreement. Danish media have focused largely on procedures, the signing ceremony itself at UN headquarters, and things like Foreign Minister Løkke Rasmussen’s emotional reaction. Greenland’s media seems basically to be cautious, optimistic, conveying the very understandable feeling of relief that their country was not annexed by Trump. That, however, remains a comparison with the past while there will now be an increasing need for focusing on what the future will bring.
With the exception of Arbejderen, one finds virtually no critical analysis of the agreement’s actual content, omissions, or possible consequences. The claim, the narrative, that this is a good agreement for all three parties has simply been accepted. Full stop.
*****
22. A video I recorded spontaneously less than an hour after the agreement had been signed:
Here is the concrete proposal I refer to at the end of the video. Constructive rethinking is essential, because There Are Only Alternatives (TAOA) to the false security policy of militarism:
A New Perspective and Blueprint: A Demilitarised Arctic for the Common Good — and Why It Is Rational
Note
This analysis is already published in Danish on my blog and it will also soon be on The Transnational. You have the link just above to a completely different way of thinking. They will be published across our social media channels. It will also be made available to media organisations around the world.
Experience tells us that this type of analysis will receive no attention from the leading Scandinavian media, which long ago ceased to provide free and critical journalism, diversity of perspectives and expertise, or to fulfill a genuine public-service role in the fields of security and foreign policy. So please consider this – thanks: