India, Sept. 21 -- The deal-making president of the US has claimed to have clinched yet another "historic" new deal. While the details of the US-Denmark-Greenland deal are yet to be confirmed, a Trump administration official was reported as saying that the deal gives the US "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," and "unilateral power to build additional military structures." This seemingly puts an end to Trump's longstanding contention that Greenland ought to act as a Russia-facing avant garde for the US military. Greenland, on the other hand, would have none of it, as demonstrated through official statements and, less diplomatically, an unofficial boycott of US Vice President JD Vance during his last visit in March 2025. As per the deal, the US also enjoys the understanding that Greenland wouldn't be allowed to be used by any enemy State of the US for military purposes. In the wake of Trump's mutual discontent with his NATO allies, this agreement is indeed a significant milestone in the US-Europe strategic partnership. There's a catch here, though, and it's equally historically significant. A similar deal was struck between the US and its European counterpart as the Defence of Greenland Treaty 1951. Trump, in effect, dismantled trust with Denmark, claimed betrayal, and closed a new deal which practically gave the US much of what it already received under the old treaty. This is almost an identical replication of the Strait of Hormuz situation: Mount an issue in the public domain, back it up with reckless diplomatic or military operations, create a problem that didn't exist before, claim victory by mitigating the said problem, and expect everyone to buy that. In Greenland's case, however, Denmark's leadership, since the 1950s, scaled the heights of trust-building measures to ensure a smooth alliance with the US. Trump, in his sporadic "control Russia" rhetoric, forgot that he was dealing with an ally and not a foe like Iran. He also forgot that the US could even deploy nuclear arms in Greenland until 1968 when the latter demanded freedom from radioactive weapons in the aftermath of the crash of a bomber in the territory, which affected the fragile Arctic ecosystem. Washington, therefore, ought to seriously consider the substantive gains of the new treaty. Denmark and Greenland, on the other hand, seem to be continuing the confidence-building measures with this treaty, as the clouds of uncertainty darken the European skies....