Opinion — GreenlandEnergy.com
A single Danish word has begun to shape Greenland’s commercial climate: værnemager.
Christian Keldsen, director of Grønlands Erhverv, told the Danish business newspaper Finans last week that several member companies fear being branded as værnemagere for doing business with Americans. He did not identify any company that had already been publicly branded with the term, yet he acknowledged that some businesses are beginning to decline American opportunities.
The term carries a precise and heavy meaning in Denmark. It refers to people and companies that profited from cooperation with the authorities during Denmark’s occupation by Nazi Germany.
The Danish government’s policy of cooperation with Nazi Germany continued until 1943, yet the moral judgment attached to those who benefited from it endured for generations.
Greenlandic businesses are therefore worrying about a particular trap: conduct that is legal and consistent with official policy today could later be judged through a moral lens that has yet to take shape.
Cooperation with the United States remains Naalakkersuisut policy, and no law discourages American business. The pressure is reputational rather than legal.
Greenland’s different wartime experience
The historical irony lies in the origin of the label. Værnemageri belongs to Denmark’s experience of occupation, while Greenland spent the war defended and supplied by the United States.
Under the 1941 Kauffmann Agreement, accepted by Greenland’s local authorities while Denmark remained under occupation by Nazi Germany, the United States was authorized to establish defense facilities and protect Greenland. American forces built bases and supply routes, while Greenland’s cryolite exports supported Allied aluminum production and the wider war effort.
Greenlandic companies now fear being judged through language born of Denmark’s occupation for commerce with the country that defended and supplied Greenland during that same war.
The deeper question is why a label rooted in Denmark’s wartime experience should shape Greenlandic choices today, particularly when Greenland’s own wartime relationship with the United States followed such a different course.
Commercial and institutional caution converge
On July 11, KNR reported that Denmark’s Security and Intelligence Service, PET, was advising researchers about cooperation with the United States. According to the report, such guidance had previously centered on countries including Russia, China and Iran.
Two days later, the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources announced that it would enter no new agreements with American partners it does not already know. Existing collaborations with longstanding US researchers will continue. Employees have also been advised, as a general rule, against traveling to the United States for conferences, meetings or research.
Director Josephine Nymand said the institute had taken similar precautions when its relationships with Russia and China changed.
The institute has not said that PET directed the decision. Nymand did confirm ongoing dialogue with PET and the Danish Defence Intelligence Service, FE.
Washington helped create this climate. The rhetoric about taking control of Greenland, reporting about alleged American influence operations and sustained political pressure made American engagement more controversial. The United States bears considerable responsibility for that outcome.
Independence requires competing sources of capital
Greenland’s route away from the annual block grant depends on building a broader private economy. The Danish grant is approximately 4.3 billion kroner a year and represents roughly half of Greenland’s government revenue.
Large mining, energy and infrastructure projects require patient foreign capital measured in hundreds of millions. American capital has become an increasingly important part of that pool, alongside Canadian, British, Australian, Danish and European investment.
Denmark’s Export and Investment Fund, EIFO, holds equity stakes in Greenland-focused companies including Amaroq Minerals and GreenRoc Strategic Materials. EIFO says it has hundreds of millions of euros to deploy in 2026 and intends to direct a significant share toward Greenland’s minerals and energy sectors. GreenRoc’s Amitsoq graphite project has been designated an EU Strategic Project under the Critical Raw Materials Act and is backed by the European Raw Materials Alliance.
Greenland benefits from competition among aligned sources of capital. Restricting that competition would weaken its bargaining position, slow economic diversification and reinforce dependence on the block grant. The effect is the same regardless of intent: Denmark remains financially indispensable.
The view from Scotland
As someone who grew up in the Scottish Highlands, I recognize the pattern.
During Scotland’s independence debate, uncertainty over currency, investment, oil revenue and public finances became the strongest argument for preserving the status quo. Individual economic questions gradually hardened into a broader assumption that Scotland was too exposed to stand alone.
Greenland’s circumstances are different, but the mechanism feels familiar. Economic dependence begins to look like prudence once routes toward greater self-sufficiency are framed as unusually risky or disreputable.
Greenland’s strongest position comes from having enough credible partners to negotiate without replacing dependence on Denmark with dependence on the United States. Allowing a stigma to form around American investment makes that position harder to reach.
Værnemager belongs to Denmark’s occupation history. Greenland should be cautious about allowing fear of that label to determine which partnerships are considered respectable today.
The ghost of 1943 will not finance Greenland’s independence.
Reporting credit: The KNR stories cited in this analysis were reported by Markus Valentin on July 10, 11 and 13, 2026. Additional sources include Finans, the Financial Times and Reuters.
GreenlandEnergy.com provides independent analysis of Greenland’s energy landscape, critical minerals development, and Arctic geopolitics. For corrections or feedback: press@greenlandenergy.com
