How significant is the US military expansion?
This would be the first major increase in American military infrastructure there since the Cold War.
At its peak during the Cold War, Washington maintained 17 military installations and more than 10,000 personnel on the island.
Greenland’s strategic location explains its military importance. Sitting between Europe and North America, it lies along the shortest route for missiles between Russia and the US. It is also a critical location for detecting and potentially intercepting missile threats approaching the US.
Elizabeth Buchanan, a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), described the planned expansion as having “immense strategic weight” for the Arctic. Its significance extends beyond the number of bases or troops stationed there, she said.
Expanded facilities could give the US Space Force greater scope to operate radar, satellite and other space-related capabilities.
“Looking ahead, as the space domain emerges as a sphere for great power contest, the strategic edge delivered by bolstering networked radar and satellite linkages in Greenland is clear,” she told CNA.
Couldn’t the US already do much of this?
Despite Trump’s portrayal of the agreement as a major breakthrough, analysts said the deal seems more modest.
A 1951 defence agreement between Washington and Copenhagen already gave the US extensive military access to Greenland. It was updated in 2004 to give Greenland a greater role.
Under the existing arrangement, Washington was already able to increase its military presence as long as Denmark and Greenland were informed in advance.
Assistant Professor William James of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies said much of what has been announced therefore builds on rights Washington already possessed.
“The substance seems more modest than the lofty rhetoric,” he told CNA.
“Greenland remains Danish … and a crisis that began with threats has seemingly ended with a negotiated text.”
The prohibition on foreign military bases also largely formalises the existing situation, analysts said.
Rasmus Sinding, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, noted that Denmark, Greenland and the US already had a policy of preventing non-NATO countries from establishing military bases in Greenland.
Dr James similarly said that Denmark, which is responsible for Greenland’s defence and foreign policy, was never likely to permit Russia or China to establish a military foothold there.
