Ron@cognitivewarriorproject.com

Apparently Greenland has been in the news.

imageByRon P. SchwerySeptember 21, 2026 0
Apparently Greenland has been in the news.

Narratives are in overdrive on this topic. One side claims complete victory; the other says this is nothing more than the 1951 agreement and it ‘could’ have always been achieved if we just asked nicely. Personally, I don’t think either is true. Here are the key points from the analysis of others: 

  • Trump said the deal would allow the United States to maintain a permanent security presence in Greenland.
  • Copenhagen emphasized a different aspect of the agreement, stressing that it did not alter Greenland’s constitutional status.
  • Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the agreement recognized “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom” as well as “the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination.”
  • This is kind of a big deal no one is talking about:

  • Permanent access. Bases. Overflight. A veto on Chinese and Russian bases and “sensitive” investment. No transfer of sovereignty. No cartoon annexation. A 1951 Cold War arrangement dragged into the present and locked so it survives even if Greenland someday becomes independent from Denmark.
  • Has China attempted to make investments in Greenland? From Grok:
China showed the most interest in the 2010s. Chinese firms pursued mining projects for iron ore (Isua, acquired by Hong Kong-based General Nice), zinc, and especially rare earths at Kvanefjeld/Kuannersuit, where Shenghe Resources took a minority stake and signed offtake-related agreements. China also bid on airport expansions and explored buying a former Danish naval base. These efforts were framed around resource access and the “Polar Silk Road.”
thediplomat.com
Most of those projects never advanced. Reasons included high costs and logistics in Greenland, collapsing commodity prices, inactivity that led to lost licenses, Greenland’s 2021 ban on uranium mining (which halted Kvanefjeld because the rare-earth deposit contains uranium), environmental opposition, and political intervention by Denmark and the United States. Airport bids were effectively blocked after Denmark stepped in with financing.Studies of Chinese Arctic investment conclude that of the handful of proposed Greenland projects, nearly all failed or stalled; the remaining Shenghe stake sits in an inactive project. Current Chinese economic and physical presence is minimal.

belfercenter.org

Greenland officials have occasionally said they would consider Chinese capital if Western investors stay away, but Chinese companies have grown more cautious amid geopolitical scrutiny.

ft.com
  • Key Point: The ability to block the Chinese investments would be put at risk if Greenland votes for independence.
  • Greenland is a direct party; it grants the US permanent basing, access and overflight rights that continue even if Greenland becomes independent; allows more US bases as needed; explicitly bars non-NATO bases or military presence; and adds screening to block adversary (e.g., China/Russia) sensitive investments without US approval. No territory transfers; Danish sovereignty and Greenland self-determination are recognized.

In summary. Was it ugly? Yes. Was it necessary? Also yes. Could it have been done in another way? We will never know.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Cognitive Warrior Project Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

The Cognitive Warrior Project is a private media site. The articles and other content which appear on the Cognitive Warrior Project website are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official position of the United States Marine Corps, Special Operation Forces, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. It’s just a media site that happens to cover the U.S Military, DoD and other National Intelligence Assets.

The Cognitive Warrior Project does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Rather, The Cognitive Warrior Project provides a forum for continuing education where professionals can share opinions and cultivate ideas.

 

Comments Policy

Thank you for reading The Cognitive Warrior Project. We welcome your thoughtful opinions and comments! Please observe these basic ground rules when commenting on our articles and blog posts, or your comments will not be posted and you may be blocked from commenting.

– No spamming, trolling, advertising, or posting of unrelated content, including double-posting and unrelated external links

– No vulgar, threatening or derogatory language

– Swearing or use of racial slurs is not allowed and will result in your comment being automatically flagged as spam or trash

– We do not block comments based on political viewpoint, but please always be considerate and respectful.

– Do not use rank or real names if you are currently serving on Active Duty, National Guard or Reserves.

That’s all! If you have any further questions, please email us at Ron@cognitivewarriorproject.com

Disclaimer

In addition to news, The Cognitive Warrior Project publishes both rumor and opinion, as well as information reported by other sources. Information on The Cognitive Warrior Project may contain errors or inaccuracies, though we try to avoid them. Links to content and the quotation of material from other news sources are not the responsibility of The Cognitive Warrior Project. Photos used are used with permission, are fair use, or are believed to be in the public domain. Legitimate requests to remove copyrighted photos not in the public domain will be honored promptly. Comments by third parties are neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Cognitive Warrior Project.

 

https://www.cognitivewarriorproject.com/?page_id=3