Greenland, Please: Trump’s One-Man Geopolitical Show

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Trump has once again delivered a triumphant—and legally questionable—declaration, this time over Greenland. Claiming that the United States has “formed the framework of a future agreement” not only on Greenland but also on “the entire Arctic region,” the former president blurred the line between geopolitical ambition and political fantasy.
This decision, if implemented, would be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO countries. Additional discussions are underway regarding the Golden Dome of Greenland. Further information will be provided as discussions progress.”

When asked about the duration of the agreement, Trump replied, “Infinitely.  No time limits. Forever.”

“This is truly fantastic! The United States is getting everything we wanted, including real national security and international security,” he said.

Trump also announced that, in this context, Washington would refrain from imposing tariffs on European countries—the tariffs that were scheduled to take effect on February 1 have been cancelled.

So far, the Danish authorities have not commented on Trump’s statement. There has also been no confirmation that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has any authority to discuss Greenland’s status on behalf of Denmark.

However, The New York Times reports that U.S., Danish, and NATO officials are still discussing a framework agreement aimed at expanding U.S. military access to Greenland, rather than transferring the island to the United States, whether for money or under any other arrangement. According to the NYT, the proposal would grant the United States sovereignty over limited areas of Greenland for the construction and operation of military bases.

Judging by this, what we are witnessing is yet another loud performance in the familiar genre of “Trump the triumphant, who always succeeds.” At the same time, Trump appears to have created a convenient pretext to roll back planned tariffs on Europe after a sharp backlash from nearly all European leaders and the freezing of several major trade negotiations with the United States.

It now seems clear that this phase of the rhetorical “push” toward Greenland is over, and Trump—as the world has repeatedly observed—has once again stepped back. In parallel, however, a quieter and far more practical resolution of security issues is taking place through routine diplomatic and military channels, without spectacle or grandstanding.

While much of the world was bracing for an outright American grab of the island, Trump’s noisy performance may have served as a smokescreen for a more limited but concrete outcome: granting a specific legal status to several U.S. military bases in Greenland. As a result, Russia may soon find itself facing American—potentially even nuclear—weapons deployed nearby. Novaya Zemlya, after all, is just over 2,000 kilometers away, a negligible distance for modern missile systems.

That said, this does not rule out the possibility that Trump could revert to his trademark tactic at any moment, once again demanding, “Give me all of Greenland—immediately and forever!”

At the same time, it is worth noting that the United States is already entering an election year, and Trump increased America’s national debt by $2.25 trillion during the first 12 months of his second term. This represents a significant liability for the Republican Party. Moreover, it is a systemic one: European pension funds have already begun reducing their holdings of U.S. government bonds. So far, this trend has been confirmed in Denmark, but there is every reason to believe it could broaden further.

I would also like to note that, by statute, pension funds as financial institutions are designed to prioritize not profitability but the unconditional long-term stability of the securities that make up their capital. From this perspective, U.S. government securities are now being viewed as insufficiently stable for such requirements, with Trump’s actions widely cited as the primary cause.

One additional point is worth mentioning: if the courts ultimately rule that the tariffs imposed by Trump were illegal, the U.S. Treasury would be required to refund very substantial sums.

At the same time, there is a recent political precedent worth considering. When Democrats gained near-total control in the state of Virginia, they campaigned ahead of the fall 2025 elections on promises to lower utility bills. Instead, they went on to introduce an 11% sales tax on all firearms and ammunition, reduce criminal penalties for robbery, and replace Columbus Day with Native Peoples’ Day. The voter reaction to these moves is predictable: Democrats appear to be setting themselves up for a decline in public support—a development that benefits Republicans and Trump.

Thus, on the one hand, Trump still needs tangible and urgent political achievements. On the other hand, Democratic actions are already weakening their position as competitors to Republicans in this year’s elections. In that sense, Trump may not need to exert himself excessively at this stage.

Ultimately, this dynamic is likely to produce a temporary de-escalation of tensions around Greenland, as well as in relations with NATO and the EU. However, it is unlikely that this pause will last for long.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.