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.
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.
Rutte is known as ‘Rat’ (phonetic and meaning) according to a Dutch friend. Figures.