In high diplomacy, quiet agreements matter more than loud statements
The Economist reports: the U.S. administration is discussing a proposal with Greenland to conclude a Compact of Free Association (COFA). This is not a direct annexation of the island, but a legal form historically used in the Pacific (Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau) that would give the United States broader military and administrative freedom of action in maritime territories.
What COFA is and what the nuance is
COFA traditionally provides economic benefits and duty‑free trade for the consenting party, but most importantly it accompanies a special regime for U.S. armed forces: deployment of bases, logistics, and a simplified presence regime. According to the publication, American officials held talks with Greenland directly, bypassing Denmark — and received a refusal. At the same time, existing agreements between the U.S. and Denmark already give Americans the right to station forces in Greenland, while a COFA would change the political logic — from relations conducted through an ally to direct obligations with local authorities.
Personnel, rhetoric, signal for the region
Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the appointment of a special envoy to Greenland are seen as part of a pressure policy. If Trump frames the deals as “big business agreements,” it signals a desire to secure strategically important territories through legal schemes rather than by open annexation.
"The deals would bring Greenlanders 'huge wealth'"
— Donald Trump, former U.S. president (quote cited in the mentioned publications)
Allies' reaction and the risk of precedent
The Danish government has repeatedly expressed concern: direct U.S. policy toward Greenland undermines Copenhagen’s role as the responsible partner. According to Danish intelligence, over the past year American actions have even injected an element of tension into bilateral relations, and some members of parliament openly question such moves from the standpoint of regional security.
"If Trump is allowed to take Greenland, it will legitimize Putin's aggression"
— Danish MP (comment to LIGA.net)
Why this matters for Ukraine
At first glance, the Arctic story seems far from Ukraine. But the more important issue than territory is principle: can major players bypass allied mechanisms and change the rules of the game through jurisdictional maneuvers? For Ukraine, this is a question of international order and precedent: if a stronger party successfully changes a territory’s status through bilateral agreements, it lowers the barriers for similar transactions in other regions and weakens the mechanisms that protect territorial integrity.
Conclusion
U.S. interest in a COFA with Greenland is not just an Arctic strategy; it is a test of alliance cohesion and the resilience of the rules of the international order. For Kyiv it is important to watch not only geography but also the legal schemes and diplomatic practices that could become precedent. Whether negotiations will turn into a new norm is a question for the allies: will they defend the rules if one partner decides to act contrary to the collective logic?
