Ekaterina Serova. Not Just Bases: How the US Is Cementing Its Presence in Greenland

On September 22, 2026, on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York, the US, Denmark, and the autonomous authorities of Greenland signed a large-scale agreement on security and the expansion of the American military presence in the Arctic, Interfax reports. The US will receive the right to modernize the Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland and will be able to create «defense areas» in Narsarsuaq in the south and in Mestersvig in the east of the island. The United States will also be able to organize additional «defense areas,» intensify military operations, and strengthen the work of military facilities. Ekaterina Serova, Director of the Department of International Relations at the PORА Expert Center, comments.

At first glance, the signed agreement could be taken as yet another update of the American military presence in Northern Europe. But if one compares its architecture with the existing US defense cooperation agreements with allies in Scandinavia and the Baltics (the so-called DCA agreements), as well as with the historic 1951 US-Iceland agreement, something different becomes noticeable.

The agreement should be seen as a transition from the actual model of American presence on an ally’s territory to a special regime of shared use and governance of the territory.

Being an enemy of the US is dangerous, but being a friend?

In traditional DCAs, the American military presence is tied to a list of agreed facilities. In Finland, there are 15 such facilities; in Sweden, 17 army, air force, and naval bases and training grounds; in Norway, by 2024 the number of agreed facilities had been expanded to 12.

The Greenland model is structured differently.

The US receives the right of free overflight, landing, and movement of military aircraft and naval vessels across the entire territory of Greenland, including territorial waters. In essence, the entire territory of Greenland becomes a zone of operational access for the Green Berets.

In addition, the document limits the ability of investors from states that are not members of NATO, are not NATO partners, or are not EU countries to obtain and control information in sectors related to the development of critical infrastructure and the extraction of natural resources. In effect, Washington has secured the creation of an institutional barrier limiting, above all, China’s ability to gain access to Greenland’s strategic assets and resources.

To put this in H. Kissinger’s terms, what is at issue is not an ally losing out because of «friendship» with the US, but rather that the more important a territory is to Washington, the tougher the terms of the alliance itself. In Greenland’s case, these terms have already gone beyond the framework of an ordinary agreement on the basing of American forces.

Self-determination – yes, but with a caveat about NATO

The most sensitive issue concerns Greenland’s future status.

The agreement stipulates that if Greenland exercises its right to self-determination and declares independence, the «new Greenland» is obliged to remain in NATO or apply for membership, automatically assuming all of Denmark’s obligations under this and related agreements.

If an independent Greenland were able to choose between different security models, a period of uncertainty could arise: would American infrastructure be preserved, would American troops remain, would the island continue to participate in NATO’s surveillance and defense system?

Without qualification.

In the proposed architecture, Greenland must remain part of the Western security system. And the new agreement eliminates uncertainty in advance.

The US is buying legitimacy in Greenland

There is another aspect that, in our view, is important to take into account when analyzing the American position on Greenland. The US undertakes to provide Greenlandic enterprises with contracts for goods and services related to the creation, maintenance, and operation of military zones. This applies both to the existing Pituffik base and to new facilities.

A classical defense cooperation agreement’s main task is to legally secure the conditions for the effective presence of the American armed forces. But in Greenland, the task of legitimizing this presence within Greenlandic society is being solved at the same time through economic benefits and formal recognition of local interests.

The question now is not whether the American presence in Greenland will expand. The legal framework for this has already been created. It is more important to understand how stable the arrangement between the three parties will prove to be, especially if Greenland’s political status begins to change in the future.