The story about Trump‘s supposed to deal with NATO is developing this morning.
Apparently, the compromise that Mark Rutte has suggested on NATO's behalf is that the US bases in Greenland be considered US sovereign territory, and that this might also apply to mineral territories the US wants in that country.
In my opinion, this is entirely unacceptable, and not just because it will have been agreed under coercion. I have always found it repugnant that US bases in the UK are considered, for all practical purposes, to be US sovereign territory.
In this context, I entirely agree with Zach Polanski that the time has arrived for us to reconsider the hosting of US bases in the UK, and, through base sharing, in places like Cyprus, from which support has been provided for the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
NATO should, at this moment, be reconsidering the whole reason why it permits forces from a hostile country like the USA to be located in its territory, with a necessary transition for their removal now being a requirement for peace in Europe.
Why, in that circumstance, granting the US additional rights in Greenland makes any sense at all is completely baffling unless the likes of Mark Rutte are acting as agents for the US, and for its pro-Putin stance.
I sincerely hope that Denmark and the people of Greenland will reject this totally inappropriate move.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“NATO should, at this moment, be reconsidering the whole reason why it permits forces from a hostile country like the USA”
Emergency European Council meeting in Bx this morning. Substitute “EU” for “NATO” and it is very likely that the EU will turf the USTrumpists out of their bases.
Rutte is probably just going through the motions – but NATO is finished & not before time.
As for the UK, Starmer’s position remains unchanged: on his knees in front of Trump licking his shoes. What a dispicable little man he is.
As for Polanski, I await with interest what slurs & slanders will be directed at him for having the temerity to suggest no more UK-as-a-US aircraft carrier.
Much to agree with
It’s coercive acquisition of territory.
As for what our Cyprus sovereign base does to enable genocide in Gaza, although Gaza has for a long time been a concentration camp for Palestinian refugees, apparently we are planning to concentrate them even more, and run Uigher style re-education camps.
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2026/01/21/gaza-us-plan/
&
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/cmcc-leaked-documents-gaza-residential-zone-surveillance-checkpoints-rafah
(Carney was weak on Gaza)
Chilling – confirming worst fears – but not surprising
I was pleased to see Polanski talking about this – I want the U.S. gone from these shores too. But to use language like ‘expulsion’ – sorry – No. It sounds too emotional and reactionary.
I think the more sober and measured we are towards the U.S. in our rejection of them, the better. So let’s see a timetable for change and withdrawal negotiated.
On the subject of Greenland, hearing Mike Johnson talk absolute nonsense about ‘common sense’ prevailing in Europe about the defensive nature of essentially taking over Greenland was galling and typical of the ‘deceit in plain daylight’ that has enabled President Bunt to to get where he is. It is the outrageousness, the gall of the risk taker we are seeing here, the chancer, the bluffer. All the U.S. needs is more of a toehold, and then it all starts from there – ask the Red Indians. Does Greenland want to end up like South East Asia, hosting U.S. service men who get bored and treat the local population like shit? I think not.
The way the Greenland crisis is being sold is as if there is war brewing. A politician from Denmark interviewed last night said that there had not been a Chinese navy ship in that area for more than 10 years. So, is the U.S. preparing for war? Are they going to start one – by hedging in China from the North and South? There is a provocative side to all this it sees to me.
I said last year that US military bases in the UK should go and it seems latest developments make his even more so. This “deal” as regards Greenland is unsurprising and unacceptable. I note Starmer’s gutless criticism in Parliament of Polanski’s comments on US bases. It seems at a time when strong leadership is required we have Bungle from Rainbow as our Prime Minister!
Does anyone know what is the legal status of US bases in Britain? Are they all the same – or are some more nearly sovereign US territory’ than others. They are all called ‘RAF etc. etc’. Would anyone ask a question about in HoC?
It sounds like you have just declared hostilities on the USA. That’s going to work out well
Have you noticed that the USA has declared hostilties on us?
No?
Why not?
And why do you welcome that?
Perhaps the answer is to have more NATO bases on Greenland but where ownership is still retained by Greenland?
@ Cornish Economist,
There’s a culture clash in play here, which Europeans are just as guilty as the Americans, in failing to grasp.
Land ownership is not part of Inuit culture. They believe that the land is for everyone, not for individuals.
The concept is as foreign to them as owning the air that we breathe.
It does appear, from what Yvette Cooper has publicly said this morning, that even giving Sovereignty to US bases in Greenland is off the table, instead a commitment from various NATO members to actively add forces and monitoring around Greenland as an “Arctic Sentry”.
One of Trumps incoherent argument was that people don’t defend what they don’t own. If he really thought that then logically he would have to own all of Europe for the US view of NATO to work. In any case, either Greenland is vital to the defence of the US or it isn’t. If it is, it is irrelevant whether the forces and defences the US can already legally place there are on leased land, or owned land. If Greenland in the future said “be ye gone” then at that point the US could say “you and whose army, make me”, although hopefulyl there will be someone less childish in the Whitehouse.
Thank you, Richard.
There’s a lot of fuss about the new Chinese embassy, but not about the giant US one up river.
US bases are supposed to be “lodger units” under a British commander. It’s a legal fig leaf. US forces and diplomats do what they want with the knowledge and complicity of the government, vide RAF Croughton and the late, young Harry. Often, the British commander or a delegate is not on site.
”the time has arrived for us to reconsider the hosting of US bases in the UK”. Indeed, everything must go! Including:
RAF Lakenheath (Suffolk)
Host unit: 48th Fighter Wing (USAF) — one of the largest U.S. Air Force wings in Europe.
Aircraft & mission:
F-15E Strike Eagles and F-35A Lightning II fighter squadrons (e.g., the 495th Fighter Squadron, first U.S. F-35A squadron based overseas).
Air superiority, strike missions, training, NATO deterrence operations.
Role: Main U.S. combat air base in UK and Europe.
Personnel: ~6,332 U.S. DoD personnel (MoD data).
RAF Mildenhall (Suffolk)
Note: Plans for drawdown/closure have been discussed recently, but as of current official deployments this remains a significant U.S. site in UK.
Host unit: 100th Air Refueling Wing — operates KC-135R/T Stratotanker aircraft for aerial refueling across Europe.
Special Operations: 352nd Special Operations Wing with aircraft like CV-22 Ospreys operates from here.
Mission: Refueling, mobility support, special operations, logistic and regional support activities.
Personnel: ~4,245 U.S. DoD personnel.
RAF Croughton (Northamptonshire)
Function: Major communications and intelligence relay hub — critical for U.S. Defense Department and NATO command/control communications.
Role: Part of USAF’s global communications network.
Personnel: ~631 U.S. DoD personnel.
RAF Alconbury & RAF Molesworth (Cambridgeshire)
Role: Administrative, support, and intelligence roles under the 501st Combat Support Wing.
Units/Functions:
Command, intelligence, analytic, and support detachments.
Personnel (combined): RAF Alconbury ~726; RAF Molesworth ~203.
RAF Menwith Hill (North Yorkshire)
Mission: Signals intelligence and secure communications support, jointly operated with U.S. and UK agencies (including the NSA).
Personnel: ~1,000 U.S. DoD personnel.
RAF Fairford (Gloucestershire)
Role: Forward Operating Location — used for B-52, B-1 and B-2 bomber deployments as part of rotational bomber task force missions.
Support unit: 420th Air Base Squadron oversees operations here.
Personnel: ~300 U.S. DoD personnel.
RAF Welford (Berkshire)
Function: Ammunition and munitions storage site supporting USAF operations at nearby air bases.
Not typically hosting flying units but essential logistics infrastructure.
Other Support Locations
Blenheim Crescent (Ruislip, London area): Administrative and support offices for US Army, Air Force, and Navy personnel.
Other smaller outstations/communications sites exist (e.g., RAF Barford St John linked to Croughton).
(These figures do not include classified locations/temporary deployments; actual total U.S. personnel in the UK is commonly cited near ~12,000 overall.)
Signals intelligence and communications at Menwith Hill and Croughton.
Logistics
Ammunition storage (RAF Welford), base support infrastructure.
Jim,
Quite a list. Hadn’t appreciated the scale – but in the interests of completeness ( 🙂 )
– Is there any USAF presence in Scotland ? I’d be surprised if there is nothing there?
– Naval assets? I think that US Navy drops in to HMNB Faslane from time to time. Do you have numbers of that too?
– No permanent US Army based in the UK ?
The U.S. Army operates U.S. Army Garrison United Kingdom (USAG UK). This garrison supports Army personnel, intelligence units, and joint/NATO activities rather than hosting large combat units. Army-related activity is spread across joint or specialized sites, including:
RAF Menwith Hill (primarily intelligence; run by NSA with Army involvement)
RAF Molesworth (supports NATO intelligence operations)
RAF Croughton (communications; primarily USAF but supports Army functions)
The United States Air Force does not currently have any dedicated bases in Scotland.
The U.S. Navy maintains a Naval Activities command in the United Kingdom (NAVACTUK) which historically provided administrative and logistical support for U.S. naval activities in the UK and Northern Europe. This organisation oversaw offices and support functions in places like London and formerly at RAF facilities. These are office/support presences rather than large operational naval bases with ships permanently homeported there. The U.S. Navy does not have its own permanent facilities at Faslane – ships and subs visit there on an ad hoc but fairly regular basis, especially when operating in the European/North Atlantic area as part of U.S. Sixth Fleet missions, NATO exercises, or bilateral activities with the Royal Navy.
The UK armed forces, while highly capable in many areas, rely extensively on U.S. support across multiple domains. From airpower and aerial refueling to intelligence, communications, and strategic mobility, American bases in the UK are deeply integrated into both national defense and NATO operations. Thousands of U.S. personnel stationed here provide capabilities that the UK alone cannot fully replicate on short notice, meaning the two forces operate in a highly interdependent network rather than independently.
Given this interdependence, how do you envision the UK maintaining the same level of defense and deterrence if all U.S. bases were removed?
Are you assuming that the U.S. presence is purely optional and that the UK could fully replace these capabilities on its own, even if the goal were solely to defend the British Isles? If so, at what cost and over what timescale?
The U.S. is also a major supplier of equipment to UK forces, and the armed services are critically dependent on them for upgrades, spare parts, and software support. The challenges faced with programs like Ajax, where delays, cost overruns, and capability shortfalls have been widely documented, serve as a cautionary example of the difficulties the UK faces in independently sustaining and modernising its defence industry.
Any realistic plan to reduce reliance on U.S. support must account for these industrial and logistical limitations.
I am not arguing that the bases should necessarily be retained, nor that the UK should remain permanently reliant on U.S. military support; rather, we should be careful not to be economical with the truth regarding the capabilities of our armed services following such a major change.
Since Suez, France has over many decades built a genuinely independent armed force. Perhaps today, only through the application of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) could the UK realistically finance the creation of similar independence.
Let me ask you a question.
Why should we provide a country which is now an enemy with bases?
Sure, we will have defence issues. Can you tell me who is going to exploit them? And why? And when?
Please explain, because you are very confident, but I am not sure for what reason, although your conclusion is fair.
”Are you assuming that the U.S. presence is purely optional and that the UK could fully replace these capabilities on its own, even if the goal were solely to defend the British Isles? If so, at what cost and over what timescale?”
Of course the US presence is optional – *in theory* they are only here with the agreement of the UK government. Even if the US agreed to go, which is by no means certain, winding down the arrangements – removing the personnel and materiel and decommissioning facilities could take years. Of course the UK could not fully replace these capabilities in the short or even medium term, and not without enormous psychological and practical rupture and expense but would they need to if the goal were solely defence? France has spent many decades evolving a fully independent military. Understanding the enormity of the US military presence in the UK does underline just how dependent our own politicians and military are on the existing arrangements for their sense of military security – recent reports have claimed that the UK’s armed forces are quite feeble and with very little actual war-fighting capacity, certainly in comparison to the US. Your question, Tim, seems to contain an assumption that the US assets presently in the UK would actually be used in the UK’s interests in a future time of conflict – unfortunately that is by no means certain under the present US administration. In any case, the UK might not have any choice about the matter – if Trump and his successors are true to their current rhetoric, it might not be a case of a brave UK government asking the US military to leave our shores – they may withdraw whether we like it or not. It is really hard to get our heads around it but, we (‘the Europeans’) are now apparently the enemy, and Russia is the US’s friend.
Apparently Sir Keir is now doing the rounds claiming “British pragmatism” helped solve the crisis over Greenland. Some semi-compliant media helpers will oblige in his messaging, no doubt. But nobody intelligent is fooled. The crisis persists. As for British pragmatism I don’t even know where to begin. I wonder if Starmer believes himself or whether he knows it’s nonsense. Either way it all seems dystopian to me.
There is no deal.
Greenland has not been consulted.
Exactly. Many of Trump’s “deals” seem to better fit the definition of words like coercion or imposition.
Rutte is known as ‘Rat’ (phonetic and meaning) according to a Dutch friend. Figures.
He is also well known to forget things at moments of convenience. Both him and Trump will have forgotten the contents of the agreement by the time it matters. It is not an agreement.
For Trump to pride himself on being ‘the’ deal maker he seems to have forgotten Deal Making 101….only negotiate with the decision maker
How has American atrocities since 1945 become normalised by successive governments . Supported by the media ,the so called security services and the rest of the deep state. The US assisted the Greeks who has collaborated with Germany to become the government. Left to the Greek voters the Left would have won the election. They had done the fighting. Thousands of Greeks were were sent into exile after being incarcerated in concentration camps . Then the USA dragged Britain into war in Korea. Millions died.an elected government was overthrown by a coup in Iran. M16 and the CIA were responsible.Italy would have elected a left wing government after1945. America prevented it. Then we come to the real malign crime in Vietnam. America met 75 % of the cost of the French/ Vietnamese war . Then they invaded after a CIA master illusion.Once again millions died. People are still dying from the use of Agent Orange.Babies are born deformed. A crime so horrid it reaches depths of barbarism previously unplumbed. The list goes on. Almost every country in Latin America has been attacked by the USA. The Monroe Doctrine has been permanent.In latter years the barbarism got worse. War crimes were committed in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. British leaders were guilty, Blair ,George Robertson and others. They unashamedlly aligned themselves with America. Laughing the terrible crimes off. FInally, the genocide in Palestine revealed the full extent of the evil that is the USA. The Isrealis joined them The Starmer prostrated himself and our country . The final debasement. Worse still he cannot bring himself to all out the dastardly atrocities in Venezuala and Greenland. Our country should have refused to have anything to do with the USA a long time ago. Close every base .
The Pituffik Base (Thule Air Base) though it does notionally acknowledge Danish sovereignty is in practice sovereign US territory, though the Danish flag, and now Icelandic flag, has to be flown alongside the US flag. Whilst there are only hundreds there now, at its peak there were reportedly 10,000.
“Without prejudice to the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark over such defense area and the natural right of the competent Danish authorities to free movement everywhere in Greenland, the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto:
(i) to improve and generally to fit the area for military use;
(ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment, including meteorological and communications facilities and equipment, and to store supplies;
(iii) to station and house personnel and to provide for their health, recreation and welfare;
(iv) to provide for the protection and internal security of the area;
(v) to establish and maintain postal facilities and commissary stores;
(vi) to control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and water-borne craft and vehicles, with due respect for the responsibilities of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark in regard to shipping and aviation;
(vii) to improve and deepen harbors, channels, entrances, and anchorages.”
The US could bring strength back up to former levels at the base, and more, with only a need to inform Greenland/Denmark of doing so and the agreement allows additional bases with Danish agreement, the case for the US needing Greenland for defence doesn’t stand up, but I doubt Trump isn’t going to be in any mood to lessen those existing US rights in Greenland.
I suspect Rutte is telling Trump that he doesn’t need to own Greenland, he can get what he wants using the existing treaty and perhaps stretching it a bit for mineral rights.
The treaty is supposedly under NATO auspices, “an Agreement for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization”, it would end if the US left NATO, Of course if the US owned Greenland then the treaty is obsolete.
I suspect Trump though has his eyes on mining and the part of the Arctic which is currently under Danish control due to its ownership of Greenland.
https://theconversation.com/us-military-has-a-long-history-in-greenland-from-mining-during-wwii-to-a-nuclear-powered-army-base-built-into-the-ice-273355
Noted.
Re Professor Murphy’s reply to my post at 7:37pm.
Thank you for your considered reply. With respect, I specifically said that I am not arguing that U.S. bases must necessarily be retained. My direct answer to your first question is: we must not.
My point is that vulnerabilities would immediately appear following their removal, which the original poster did not acknowledge.
These vulnerabilities would arise in areas such as the protection of critical supply chains for energy, food, and resources like fertilisers, which cannot be produced domestically, and resilience against ongoing cyber attacks. They would also appear in the campaigns in which UK forces are currently engaged abroad, irrespective of whether one believes we should be engaged in such operations.
I think it is unrealistic to assume that countries on the other end of those supply chains would welcome an increased burden or responsibility for securing UK supply continuity.
Any actor observing these gaps and vulnerabilities, whether Russia, other hostile states, or opportunistic challengers, could see an opportunity to advance their interests.
Furthermore, a militarily weakened UK could damage its reputation as a reliable ally, making it harder for European partners to trust that we can act effectively in crises, which in turn may encourage adversaries to test our resolve, particularly if the UK were to unilaterally declare the U.S. to be hostile.
Assuming these risks will not, or are unlikely to, materialise while defence capability is reoriented is a political choice.
But if they do materialise, it will not be the politicians who failed to adequately address the immediate vulnerabilities who will suffer the consequences. Therefore it is important that the electorate understands and acknowledges how directly these vulnerabilities could affect them and in doing so support the action.
Further it seems to me that to avoid a nakedly weakened position the UK would require a defence treaty with another power capable of providing strategic cover while the UK rebuilds appropriate independent capability. Ideally we build independence first and expel second, but as we have seen in recent times the UK takes momentous decisions first and muddles through the consequences second.
I think you are missing a rather important point. I am not suggesting the UK act alone. I am suggesting all the “midle states” do. That totally changes the framing.
TACO… The EU looks like retaliating seriously and Trump chickens out. Furthermore there is considerable push back in the US. There is no deal, it is just a typical Ruttian con story to keep up appearances. Trump flies home with a story that looks good on Fox. Besides, the US are not going to spend big in Greenland: there are no voters there. Al the big US military spending, bases and such are done because of the votes they bring in. No one in the Senate or House is going to get re-elected because of big spending in Greenland. Just a repackaging of the existing treaty that is already in place.
Only those planning elections worry about votes.
Trump has already told Americans they won’t need to bother voting again.
See my post literally just published. Were you looking over my shoulder as I wrote it?
The topic of US overreach and its consequences are discussed very well by Chalmers Johnson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQi4-97GXrI
His book Blowback discusses the subject of US bases.
But Sorrows of Empire and Nemisis complete the series.
Recommended.
Anyone reading his books is not surprised by recent events.