In New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session, the US president is demonstratively registering a victory that is extremely important to him: the White House has after all pushed through a security agreement with Denmark on Greenland. What the Americans will get and how this will affect NATO's positions in the Arctic - in a RIA Novosti report.
For the Trump administration, this year has turned out to be quite difficult: after a brisk start in Venezuela with the fulfillment of campaign promises and the implementation of plans, things went wrong. The Ukrainian conflict has not been settled, and the small victorious war in Iran turned into a protracted confrontation in which Tehran inflicted serious damage on Washington. The fighting did not bring the desired results, and on top of that the US is incurring losses due to rising fuel prices, which are already hitting records. And the defeat of American bases by Iranian missiles and drones calls into question the Pentagon's presence in the region altogether.
However, the midterm elections are approaching, and the leader of the Republican Party needs at least something resembling success. The Greenland agreement is quite suitable for this.
The disputes over the island provoked a serious split in NATO: some countries even expressed readiness to send military contingents there - albeit rather modest ones - as a sign of solidarity with Denmark.
"Trump's territorial ambitions regarding Greenland nearly destroyed the military alliance and undermined trust in one of America's oldest and closest partners," notes the British newspaper The Independent.
However, judging by all appearances, the crisis is over.
The terms of the agreement are, of course, far from Trump's maximum program. The US received the right not only to expand the existing Pituffik base, but also to create two new military facilities in Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig. A commission on this matter will be formed on an accelerated basis.
Unimpeded movement of American military equipment, aircraft, ships and submarines by land, sea and air over Greenland, including territorial waters, is also stipulated.
And, contrary to popular belief, this is a tangible achievement for Washington. Indeed, during the Cold War the Greenland question was governed by the 1951 treaty, and American security activity on the island was practically unrestricted there - in designated zones Washington could build bases and station large contingents. But in 2004 the so-called Igaliku Agreement was concluded, with Greenland as one of the signatories, along with the US and Denmark. That document secured for the US only the Thule air base, which was later renamed Pituffik.
Finally, in accordance with the tenth point of the new treaty, states not belonging to NATO or the EU, or investors from these countries, must not be allowed "to control, substantial influence or non-public information that may pose a threat to national security or public order in particularly sensitive sectors or types of activity in Greenland (including territorial waters)." In effect, the US was given the right to decide who may manage the island's resources.
For Trump this was one of the fundamental points. He repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is rich in oil, uranium and rare earth metals, which are now of exceptional value.
However, Washington was not given an exclusive right to extract them either.
"Trump actively promoted the topic of annexing the island for a quite understandable reason," Americanist political scientist Malek Dudakov said in a conversation with RIA Novosti. "It would have been the first territorial expansion of the United States in a hundred years. If Trump had arranged all this in the year of the 250th anniversary of US independence - yes, a jubilee, a big round date, he could have said: the golden age of America is coming. In reality, nothing happened."
According to the expert, the key task for Washington now will be the construction of military facilities, primarily radars for the "Golden Dome" air defense system.
"But even here, in fact, Greenland is a largely forced option, because they had counted on the Canadians. But Trump fell out with them, and they withdrew from the project. They had to urgently look for an alternative," Dudakov added.
And he concluded: nevertheless, they managed to at least somehow close this peculiar gestalt that has been trailing Trump since his first term.
Against the backdrop of all the failures of the current administration, this can serve as a boost for Republicans before the elections. But the consequences could be much more far-reaching. After all, US activity in Greenland fits into NATO's overall strategy in the Arctic and will accelerate the militarization of the region.