US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte agreed in Davos on the basis of a future deal on Greenland and almost simultaneously removed the threat of US tariffs on several European countries from the agenda. These decisions, announced by the American leader, became the main political results of the World Economic Forum.
About the deal with Rutte Trump reported on their social networks, emphasizing that we are not just talking about Greenland but about the entire Arctic region. According to him, the future agreement “will be a big plus for the United States and all NATO countries.” In the same post, the US leader announced his refusal to impose 10% tariffs from February 1 on Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Britain and a number of other countries that support Copenhagen in the island dispute.
However, Trump has made no secret of the fact that he views the Greenland issue as a matter of principle. Speaking in Davos and later answering questions from the press, he reiterated that the United States “needs this ice for world security,” adding that he had no intention of using force but wanted to “start negotiations immediately.” Then, in an interview with CNBC, the US President went even further, noting that the future agreement would be “permanent” in nature.
“We have the concept of a deal. It would be very good for the United States and for them. It would be forever,” Trump emphasized.
As the British newspaper The Telegraph discovered, behind the noisy formulas lies a rather specific structure of the agreement. The Greenland Agreement does not involve a formal sale or transfer of the island to the United States. We are talking about giving Washington real control over parts of the island, which will be declared sovereign American territory. military base. According to the publication's sources, this model largely copies the agreements between Britain and Cyprus, where British bases are considered UK territory.
Under these plans, the United States will be able to conduct military operations, conduct intelligence operations, build infrastructure and participate in projects to develop rare earth metal reserves without requiring Danish consent. A separate category includes the placement of components of the promising US Golden Dome missile defense system on the territory of Greenland. The newspaper confirmed that the framework agreement was personally agreed by Trump and Rutte to address Copenhagen's concerns about the possibility of annexing the island, while also meeting Washington's strategic requirements.
The American news portal Axios clarified that the main element of the future agreement will be the extension of the 1951 “Agreement for the Defense of Greenland” between the United States and Denmark. The new document will expand the concept of “defense zones,” strengthen NATO’s role in the Arctic and establish additional mechanisms to counter “external influence, mainly from Russia and China.” Such a plan would allow the United States to “permanently achieve all strategic objectives related to Greenland at minimal cost.” Trump himself is “very hopeful” about the successful signing of the agreement.
In Europe, there was an ambiguous reaction to the statement by the head of the White House on the “framework of a future agreement” on Greenland. According to Politico, in Brussels what is happening is considered an alarming signal. European diplomats spoke of loss of trust in the US and called the situation around Greenland “the deepest breakdown in transatlantic relations in decades”.
The harshest statements were made in Paris, London and Copenhagen. According to European media, French President Emmanuel Macron considers it unacceptable to discuss sovereignty issues “behind Europe's back” and is worried about creating a precedent in which territorial and resource issues are resolved with the power of political influence. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the House of Commons that London “will not compromise its principles and values on Greenland's future in the face of the threat of tariffs”.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen directly pointed out that US ambitions regarding Greenland “cannot be satisfied”, emphasizing that Copenhagen will not participate in negotiations that involve abandoning basic principles. At the same time, the Danish Minister called Washington's decision to abandon the use of force a “positive signal” and ironically expressed hope that dialogue would now be conducted “through normal diplomatic channels, not through social networks.”
Sweden and Finland, welcoming Trump's refusal to impose tariff pressures, noted that Arctic issues should be resolved fully within the framework of international law and with the participation of all interested parties. Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Stenergaard drew attention to the fact that de-escalation “cannot be the price for a tacit agreement to reconsider the balance of influence.”
At the same time, some European leaders actually support Trump. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni positively evaluated the refusal to impose taxes. Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schof directly called this a “step towards de-escalation”, emphasizing the importance of cooperation between the US, Europe and Canada in NATO, especially in the Arctic. Union Secretary General Mark Rutte decided to keep the plot alive by avoiding a direct answer to the question of whether Greenland is still part of the Danish kingdom, adding that “there is still a lot of work ahead.” German Prime Minister Friedrich Merz also gave a cautious assessment, saying that dialogue with the US is more appropriate than “ultimatum language” and that Arctic security should be considered the collective responsibility of the alliance.
Against this backdrop, an emergency EU summit is being held in Brussels to discuss relations with the United States and the situation around Greenland. Removing the tariff threat only allows for the end of one agenda item, while Washington's approach to Arctic security and NATO's role remain the subject of serious disagreement. At the meeting, EU leaders intend to develop a common direction, want to maintain the transatlantic partnership and fear that Trump's “permanent agreement” could forever change the balance of power.
