Why Trump backed down on Greenland and what he gets in return
The US push to annex Greenland, if not abandoned altogether, has at least been postponed for the foreseeable future. This is the outcome of negotiations that culminated in a meeting between Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
There are now grounds to expect a period of relative stability.
In the coming months, the United States is likely to reach an agreement on "Arctic security" with other NATO members, most probably including Denmark.
Washington had rejected this option until now, as the US president’s ambitions regarding Greenland were not, in fact, driven primarily by security considerations.
Read more in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor: Trump’s 'gesture of goodwill': what forced the US president to put the Greenland dispute on hold.
Trump’s written statement following his meeting with the NATO secretary general in Davos immediately drew widespread attention.
Without offering specifics, the US president said he and Rutte had agreed on a framework arrangement on Greenland acceptable to NATO allies. This, by definition, also makes it acceptable to Denmark, of which Greenland is a part.
Separately, Trump announced he was canceling previously threatened tariffs on European goods, which were due to take effect on 1 February and had been framed as leverage to extract concessions from Europe over Greenland.
The details of the "deal" that prompted Trump to step back, at least for now, from annexation have not been made public, for a simple reason: no such deal formally exists.
Nevertheless, its likely contours are already emerging.
Washington intends to present the arrangement as a response to the Russian missile threat. With Denmark’s consent, elements of the US "Golden Dome" missile defence system would be deployed on Greenlandic territory – a move Copenhagen has already signaled it is prepared to approve.
According to The New York Times, discussions have also included the possibility of granting the United States sovereignty over limited areas housing military bases in Greenland.
Formally, such arrangements would not amount to a territorial concession.
If US media reports are accurate, the model would resemble Cyprus, where the United Kingdom exercises similar rights over sovereign base areas.
Trump’s retreat, temporary or otherwise, from annexing Greenland was not voluntary.
In this respect, his actions echo Vladimir Putin’s well-known "gestures of goodwill": apparent concessions made only when no viable alternatives remain.
Trump’s strategy of pressure, threats, and political blackmail against European allies proved too radical even for many within his own party, which over the past year has repeatedly shown a willingness to sacrifice principle in order to retain the president's favour.
In recent days, Trump has faced pockets of firm resistance in Congress, further weakening his already fragile majority. At the same time, a deepening confrontation with NATO allies risked becoming electorally toxic for the Republican Party ahead of the November 2026 midterms.
Market pressure also appears to have played a role. US stock markets dipped following Trump’s annexation rhetoric, while the prospect of investors pulling out of US debt began to look increasingly real and potentially costly.
Finally, Trump underestimated Europe’s responce. European states, including Washington’s closest partners, closed ranks against him. A speech by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, which received a standing ovation in Davos, became a wake-up call not only for Western allies, but for Trump himself, who made little effort to conceal his irritation.