What's Really Going On With Greenland?

We now have Canada surrounded. 🤠 pic.twitter.com/uAMj89DY8T

— Eric Trump 🇺🇸 (@Eric_TrumpRv) September 19, 2026

The media commentary on Trump's Greenland deal doesn't seem to be very insightful. At The Wall Street Journal,

The Trump administration wisely connected Greenland’s security to America’s broader strategic position in the Western Hemisphere and the North Atlantic. The new agreement improves Washington’s strategic position as well as that of its European partners, which will benefit from a strengthened northern flank. The pact makes America and its partners safer and puts China and Russia on notice that the U.S. and its Arctic partners will stand shoulder to shoulder against their malign behavior in one of the world’s most dynamic regions.

But wait a moment. As far as we've seen, the Greenland deal is a trilateral agreement between the US, Denmark, and Greenland that's independent of NATO. According to Trump, as of this past January, a future deal involving NATO and Greenland is still in the works:

Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. . . . Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Russia echoes the idea that the deal doesn't involve NATO:

The Kremlin said on Tuesday that a ‌deal between the United States, ‌Denmark and Greenland that will allow a ​larger US military presence on Greenland was a matter for those involved and that cooperation between Russia ‌and Washington ⁠in the Arctic was currently not on the agenda.

But so far, I haven't seen anyone mention that the announcement of the Greenland deal came on the heels of the kissy-kissy talk in Strasbourg of Canada becoming an EU "associate member".

Trump suggested the proposed EU arrangement could be a “hostile act” and threatened heavy tariffs on Europe if he judged its intentions to be unfriendly — raising the stakes ahead of Carney’s speech.

Asked about Trump’s comments, Carney said Canadians were united in rejecting outside attempts to dictate the country’s choices.

“Canadians are united that nobody is going to tell us what language we speak. No one is going to dictate our culture or with whom we can strike agreements internationally,” Carney said.

But the reality of the situation is far more constrained. According to the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada,

With the release of the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), the Trump administration has delivered a comprehensive articulation of how it sees America’s core interests, what it expects from allies, and how it plans to compete in a world defined by great-power rivalry and economic insecurity. Whatever one thinks of its ideological framing or tone, the document is strategically significant. For the first time, we have a clear statement of second-term Trump priorities and an account of how Washington understands China, the Indo-Pacific, and even its own neighbourhood.

For Canada, the implications are profound. Our relationship with China—and our ability to operate with a degree of autonomy in the Indo-Pacific—will increasingly be shaped by how the United States defines the strategic map. And this strategy defines it in strikingly zero-sum terms: a return to spheres of influence, a renewed focus on balance of power, and an unapologetic assertion of U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere alongside intensified economic competition with China in the Indo-Pacific.

Frankly, it's hard for me to avoid thining a strengthened and normalized US military presence in Greenland represents a threat to Canada. The US has developed and probably continues to update war plans involving Canada since the 19th century.

Approved in 1930, War Plan Red did not propose a direct attack on Britain, especially not its superior navy, but an invasion of Canada. The US (always designated as ‘Blue’) would shore up North America as a defensive fortress and so prevent Britain from gaining a foothold for their own invasion south of the border.

Crucial to the success of War Plan Red would be capturing the port of Halifax, in Nova Scotia, as this provided a strategically vital base for British ships. So important was this target that the plan even proposed the use of poison gas to secure it. The hydroelectric plants at Niagara Falls had to be seized too so that the Canadian power grid could be disabled.

A US presence in Greenland would facilitate a blockade of Canada's eastern ports and Hudson Bay, while it would also serve to prevent reinforcements from Europe. I assume Canada's strategic and military planners, insofar as it still has them, are aware of this, and indeed, NATO's European planners must be as well. So why is this dog not barking -- and just as intriguing, why does Putin not seem upset? It's almost as though he doesn't see the deal as a threat.