„Die Dänen haben am meisten gelogen“, sagen Beobachter, die den mittlerweile veröffentlichten Grönland-Deal gelesen haben. Was sich hinter dem Schlagzeilen tatsächlich verbirgt.
Archiv: Greenland occupation fantasies: The US president threatens a European and Nato country with war – and (not) all those subjects keep their heads down…
Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (…), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.
Long story short – which may surprise some – the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.
Let‘s look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.
1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one „does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent.“
It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state „affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement.“
2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can „modernize and expand its activities“ at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and „shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.“ Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of „the American continent,“ a US interest rather than a NATO one.
Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that „the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland“ and that consultations are then held „to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement.“ What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.
Article VII also gives the US „the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use“ of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.
3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.
The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US „may enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea,“ but only „in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.“
The new one says: „the United States of America shall enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea.“
That‘s it: „May“ becomes „shall,“ and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules „issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.“ The US also gets something new on top: „undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters,“ i.e. submarines.
4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.
5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. „States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state“ (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), „shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information…within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties.“
Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.
6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.
The 1951 agreement existed only „for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.“ The new one lists the defense of „the American continent“ as an objective, celebrates „the irreplaceable role“ of the United States military as well as „the United States‘ indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland,“ and names the establishment of Trump‘s „Golden Dome“ missile defense system as a key goal.
So, to sum up:
– The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not
– The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)
– Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the „implementation details“
– Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island
– And all of it is now justified by the defense of „the American continent“
I don‘t know in which universe this even remotely „recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people‘s right to self-determination,“ as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (stm.dk/en/press/press…).
Yes, the preamble of the text cynically „reaffirms“ Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but „recognized sovereignty“
‘Is Trump Getting A Monopoly’: Greenlanders Remain ‘Nervous And Skeptical’, Question New Deal With US
Aka Hansen, a filmmaker and opposition political party member in Nuuk, said she had been told earlier this year to prepare for the worst. She stored five days’ worth of water in case of an American invasion.
“Now, suddenly, everything is fine,“ Hansen said, according to The New York Times. “What happened in between?“
‘Nervous and Skeptical,’ Greenlanders Question the New Deal With Trump
“My immediate reaction is that it makes me nervous and skeptical,” Ellen Frederiksen, a retired teacher in Narsaq, a town in southern Greenland, said by telephone.
“The way Trump presents it, it sounds as if he is being given a monopoly over Greenland,” she said. “I sincerely hope that isn’t the case.”
Dänemark jubelt heimlich über Grönland-Abkommen mit Trump
Das neue Abkommen zementiere den amerikanischen Zugang aus der alten Verteidigungsvereinbarung von 1951 und stelle klar, dass kein anderer Staat militärischen Zugang zu Grönland habe, erklärt Dahl – wobei der Grundkonflikt, ob Grönland zum Königreich Dänemark gehöre und allein das grönländische Volk über seine Zukunft entscheide, bestehen bleibe.
Sollte Trump das Abkommen später als Niederlage empfinden, könne er jederzeit neue Forderungen stellen, warnt der Kommentator.
Trump strikes Greenland deal with Denmark after threatening annexation
(Updated 1 hr 49 min ago)
“The United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, going on to call the arrangement “an ‘Infinite Life’ Agreement.”
Trump’s announcement Friday means Greenland remains under Danish control and came ahead of the official text being released. It is unclear how far this agreement differs from an existing 1951 pact between the US and Denmark that allowed broad US military presence in Greenland.
F-35 für die Bundeswehr: Was der Jet kann – und was er kostet
Boris Pistorius scheint mit dem Verlauf seiner US-Reise zufrieden zu sein. Erst vereinbart der SPD-Verteidigungsminister mit seinem amerikanischen Kollegen Pete Hegseth, bei Rüstungsprojekten noch stärker zusammenzuarbeiten. Keine Selbstverständlichkeit angesichts wachsender Zweifel an der Bündnistreue der Trump-Regierung. Und nun wird der erste F-35-Jet an die Bundeswehr übergeben.
Twilight’s Last Gleaming
There is a point in the decline of republics when the problem is no longer that government breaks its own laws. Governments will always behave unlawfully. The deeper problem comes when the constitutional machinery designed to prevent those acts stops functioning — when spending becomes detached from arithmetic, presidential power becomes detached from law and Congress and the courts become detached from the Constitution.
That’s where America is today.
(…)
The twilight of our constitutional republic has not arrived because the sun suddenly disappeared. It has arrived because, little by little, nearly everyone became accustomed to the darkness.
‘We Cannot Keep Peace When There Is No Peace to Keep,’ Secretary-General Says, Calling for Reset of United Nations Peace Operations
But let me be clear: Peacekeeping operations should only be deployed when a peace agreement or at least a robust ceasefire is in place. We cannot keep peace when there is no peace to keep.
Artikel 25 [Allgemeines Völkerrecht als Bestandteil des Bundesrechts]
Die allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechtes sind Bestandteil des Bundesrechtes. Sie gehen den Gesetzen vor und erzeugen Rechte und Pflichten unmittelbar für die Bewohner des Bundesgebietes.
Norway: International law is worth defending, even when allies break it
In an interview with Middle East Eye‘s Expert Witness podcast in Oslo, four months into the devastating war, Andreas Kravik said the war on Iran, launched on 28 February, had no basis in law.
„In our interpretation of the law, it is not a legal operation,“ Kravik said. „We think that is a violation of the UN Charter, and we have said so in no unclear terms.“
Kravik, a public international lawyer and the foreign ministry‘s former chief of legal affairs, said a state could lawfully use force against another only with authorisation from the UN Security Council, in self-defence against an immediate threat, or with the consent of the state concerned. None applied in Iran‘s case.
„There is no authorisation here from the UN Security Council… and there was no consent from Iranian authorities,“ he said. Norway had carried out its own legal assessment, he added.
Europäische Inlandsgeheimdienste sind weltweit vernetzt
(05.03.2020)
Das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz arbeitet im „Berner Club“ mit den Auslandsgeheimdiensten Mossad und CIA zusammen. Mit weiteren Behörden tauscht der deutsche Inlandsgeheimdienst Informationen zu „nicht-islamistischem Terrorismus“ sowie „Rechts- und Linksextremismus“. Wegen des „Staatswohls“ hielt die Bundesregierung diese Details bislang geheim.
The Miller Doctrine
(May 27, 2026)
Yet proposals that skirt the edges of international law didn’t come out of nowhere. The U.S. under George W. Bush created legal mechanisms following the September 11th attacks to torture hundreds of people in CIA black sites and then at Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration’s targeted drone strikes were assassinations by another name. The Biden administration further eroded international norms and subverted its own policies by financing Israel’s genocide in Gaza, in violation of the Leahy Law, which prohibits foreign military assistance to nations that violate human rights.
“Seems like Miller is sort of taking what he was already willing to do during the first term and then combining that with what Israel has been doing in the way it has just been completely ignoring any kind of international law, Geneva Conventions, any of it in its conduct in Gaza and Lebanon, to then influence U.S. foreign policy,” Annelle Sheline, a research fellow in the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said in an interview.
In other words, Miller and the Trump administration have been able to steamroll what was left of international law; they just had to figure out how to do it.
Trump’s ‘blow ‘em up’ threat to Oman means he’s now attacked or threatened 1 out of every 13 countries
He’s launched strikes in seven countries so far this term — Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen — after also attacking some of those countries in his first term. That doesn’t even count the strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, which have targeted nearly 60 vessels and killed more than 190 people.
He has also threatened or left open the possibility of strikes against seven others this term: Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Greenland (which is part of Denmark), Mexico, Panama and now Oman. He also threatened Mexico and North Korea in his first term.
Versuchslabor des Tages: Grönland
Die USA haben ein Problem. Es ist schlimmer als das Fehlen von Raketen und Bomben, das sich beim Angriffskrieg gegen Iran so bitter bemerkbar machte. Es lautet: Mit der Softpower ist es vorbei, mit dem guten Gefühl, das einst etwa Hollywood-Filme in aller Welt vermittelten. Den besten Beweis dafür lieferte die Eröffnung des neuen US-Konsulats mitten im Herzen der grönländischen Hauptstadt Nuuk am Donnerstag. Nicht nur, dass lokale Offizielle dem Event demonstrativ fernblieben. Obendrein zogen auch noch erstaunlich viele Grönländer vor das von ihnen »Trump Towers« getaufte Gebäude, um die Festlichkeiten mit »Ami go home!«- und »Nein heißt nein!«-Rufen zu stören.
‘Go Home’: Greenlanders Protest New US Consulate as Trump Envoy Makes Clear Takeover Threat Remains
Protesters were armed with Greenland’s red and white flag and signs that read “USA ASU,” which translates to “Stop USA,” as well as messages in English, including “Make America go away!” and “We are not for sale!” Their chants included “Greenland belongs to Greenlanders,” “Go home,” and “No means no.”
Donald Trump Angers NATO Ally U.K. Before King Charles‘ Visit with Push to Help Argentina Reclaim Falkland Islands
(April 24, 2026)
Reuters reported on Friday, April 24, that a recent internal Pentagon email had outlined options for the U.S. to punish NATO allies that it believes have inadequately supported its military operations in Iran.
According to the report, the Defense Department has suggested that the U.S. reassess its support for European “imperial possessions,” including the Falkland Islands, and consider suspending Spain’s NATO membership.
Trump slams NATO after meeting with Mark Rutte
President Trump went after the NATO alliance following a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte — comments that came after the Trump administration had recently expressed frustration with members of the alliance.
“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!” Trump said in a Wednesday evening post on Truth Social, referencing his push to take over Greenland that he ramped up a few months ago.
The Empire Is Losing Its Ability To Hide Its Ugly Nature
Garicano’s entire worldview depends on his ability to avoid recognizing the obvious truth: that the so-called “extreme left” has always been correct, and that the empire he worships has always been evil. It’s just having a harder and harder time masking its true nature, because of the very evils it has tried to conceal.
Everything’s becoming more and more revealed. More and more transparent. What was once done solely by whistleblowers, investigative journalists, activists and dissident media is now being done by the empire itself, because there’s only so long you can hide the truth about something so malignant. An empire that is held together by lies, corruption and endless slaughter was never going to remain unseen. The brutality necessary to dominate the planet had to come out into the light eventually.
“May all be revealed” has been my prayer for our world for many years now. That dearly held wish is now being answered, and the truth is looking every bit as ugly as expected.
May all be revealed. May all that is hidden become seen. In the empire. In our governments. In our culture. In our community. In our interpersonal relationships. In ourselves.
Many of us, liberal Europeans, spent decades pushing back against the European extreme left‘s cartoon version of America ( it‘s all oil/ imperialism/getting rich at the expense of others) and then one dumb administration walks in and performs the caricature to perfection.
(March 31, 2026)
Pentagon declines to reaffirm NATO‘s collective defense, says up to Trump
The remarks by Hegseth at a Pentagon briefing were extraordinary, given that collective defense lies at the heart of the NATO alliance, which was formed in 1949 with the primary aim of countering the risk of Soviet attack on allied territory.
Trump interview: I am strongly considering pulling out of Nato
Singling out the UK, the US president rebuked Sir Keir Starmer for refusing to get involved in the American-Israeli war against Iran, suggesting that the Royal Navy was not up for the task.
“You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work,” he said, referring to the state of Britain’s fleet of warships.
Asked whether the Prime Minister should spend more on defence, Mr Trump added: “I’m not going to tell him what to do. He can do whatever he wants. It doesn’t matter. All Starmer wants is costly windmills that are driving your energy prices through the roof.”
Spain‘s Sanchez slams double standards on Ukraine, Gaza and Lebanon
(March 25, 2026)
Speaking before Spain‘s lower house of parliament, Sanchez challenged the selective application of principles.
„What we cannot do is condemn the invasion of Ukraine … and applaud Iran‘s attacks,“ Sanchez said. „We cannot demand respect for Greenland‘s territorial integrity and remain silent when territorial integrity is violated in Gaza or Lebanon.“
Stephen Miller and the cultural politics of fascist subjectivity
(March 11, 2026)
Miller’s very being evokes the cold mechanization of a machine, a body turned against itself, moving without rhythm, empathy, or grace. His presence feels engineered: cold, scarred, and hollowed out, the body made into an instrument of command. It is as if a war within himself has long since been lost, a war against vulnerability, imagination, and the capacity to feel. What remains is a man armored against life itself.
The Wrath of Stephen Miller
(January 7, 2026)
Trump has described Miller as sitting “at the top of the totem pole” inside the White House.
“He oversees every policy the administration touches,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told us. “I can’t tell you the number of times a policy matter is discussed in the Oval and Trump will say, ‘Where’s Stephen? Tell him to get that done.’”
To critics, Miller is the smirking embodiment of everything they view as dangerous and authoritarian about the Trump administration. He has been called a Nazi, a neo-Nazi, a white supremacist, a kapo, and Lord Voldemort. Posters of Miller—pursed lips, furrowed brow—have been plastered around the nation’s capital, stamped with CREEP and FASCISM AIN’T PRETTY. His own uncle has denounced him, writing at one point that if Miller’s immigration policies had been implemented a century ago, their family—which fled anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe—“would have been wiped out.”
‚Trump‘s psyche‘: The aide driving president‘s most controversial policies
(February 9, 2026)
„By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland?“ Miller asked. „Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.“
He went on to assert that there are „iron laws of the world“.
„We live in a world, in the real world… that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,“ he said.
It was heady stuff coming on the heels of America‘s surgically precise use of military force in Venezuela. And, for a president who a few days later would tell the New York Times that the only limit on his global powers are „my own morality“ and „my own mind“, it may have been warmly received.
Despite Greenland crisis, Trump suggests NATO owes him help on Iran war after U.S. support for Ukraine. ‘We’ve been very sweet’
Just two months ago, NATO was in the middle of an existential crisis over President Donald Trump’s insistence that the U.S. take control of Greenland. He threatened tariffs and refused to rule out military action, but eventually backed down.
Then on Sunday, Trump demanded the alliance help him clear the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has blocked since the U.S. and Israel launched their war on the Islamic republic two weeks ago.
Joint statement by the Prime Ministers of the Nordic countries and Canada
We – the Prime Ministers of the Nordic countries and Canada – met in Oslo today, 15 March 2026.
At a time characterized by heightened geopolitical tension, war and a multitude of crises, we are united in the view that international cooperation, based on international law, shared values and interests, remains the best way to strengthen our common security and prosperity.
As democracies and countries committed to the rule of law, human rights, and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states, we share fundamental values, and strengths.
Today we have agreed to deepen cooperation between our countries to ensure the safety, security and sovereignty of our people, and to build prosperous and green economies of the future.
Canada is set to build new bases in the Arctic after Trump threatened ‘51st state’ and Greenland takeover
(March 13, 2026)
The display of military force follows threats from Trump to annex Canada and take over the Danish territory of Greenland for national security purposes
MAKE AMERICA GO AWAY CAP
for the fashionable and the angry
An everyday classic with a relaxed fit, this low-profile cap pairs comfort with timeless style.