It does have the novelty that even under independence the US will continue to operate the bases. I'm not sure if Denmark thinks this is a poison pill for any independence movement.
The Golden Dome bases in Greenland are such a stupid pretext:
1) Russia has the Sarmat missile that flies over the South Pole and completely evades all northern installations.
2) Russia has the Poseidon nuclear torpedo that threatens the vast coastal areas of the US and is immune all that as well.
Also Trump seems to be allied with Russia. They got him elected and paid for his son's wedding and so on. He withdrew all support for Ukraine, and has put tariffs on practically every country except Russia.
He has consistently pressured Ukraine to surrender and repeated Russian propoganda verbatim.
He saved Putin a loss of face by pressuring Ukraine not to strike the last victory day parade.
Even before he was president he handed Russia one of their biggest military victories by having maga follower Mike Pence block military aid to Ukraine for 6 months just after their offensive had culminated.
It's unfortunate you are getting down voted for pointing out pretty much what has happened.
Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were.
The people debating whether he's compromised are missing the point, if he's not then there is the much more interesting question of then why has his foreign policy been to their benefit?.
Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were.
If it’s immaterial there’s no reason to bring it up. But while Trump hasn’t been as hawkish on Russia as I’d like him to be, I’m not entirely sure that “much of what he does” - whatever that is - is to the benefit of Russia.
Signing the Lindsey Graham bill isn’t for the benefit of Russia. Nor was stopping shadowfleet tankers from Venezuela and Iran.
I don't disagree with your details, but I am really not sure why the alternatives (Obama, Clinton, Biden) were somehow seen as tougher on Russia? All the invasions from Crimea in 2014, and 2023 were not under Trump administrations and the response from the US then was not effective at all.
It's debatable: funding and supporting a proxy since 2023 was a pretty effective way to keep Russia into a quagmire for years, seriously affecting their military, draining their finances, and isolating their economy - to the point that any non-military activity outside of the country has basically disappeared. Short of direct engagement, which is unfeasible due to MAD, it basically was the strongest response.
(2014 is different, in the sense that it was always going to happen if Ukraine ever managed to escape Russian orbit, and more or less everyone knew.)
Also, the previous deal didn’t let the U.S. expand its military presence without Denmark approval. And it was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty. The new deal is permanent.
I dont know why people think this isnt more permissive for the US.
Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference.
But Denmark could deny access. Formal agreements are important. You generally don’t leave this stuff up to chance or ambiguity if you don’t have to.
The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
I’m confused by this. What good do satellites do? So you can watch an enemy armada sail by? There is more importance especially if/when these northern sea routes begin to have interdiction and further early warning systems available. I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
You assume this deal was driven by military needs. And we all know what happens when one assumes...
I would be ready to bet that, considering how the current administration decapitated the military and installed yes-men at the top, this effort was not, in fact, driven by military needs.
You’re making your own assumptions while accusing me of being beholden to mine.
One can simply think about it and understand the military and strategic importance of Greenland and that the US may over time change its defensive posture in the region depending on various goals or situations.
I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
Watching a scripted Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Senators and Generals agreeing on every topic that serves the Senators' districts and the generals' post-service Raytheon jobs: Yes, they know exactly what they are doing.
Notice how in the current war in Europe Russia is not using ICBMs or nuclear torpedoes, and the bulk of the damage is dealt by vast numbers of small, cheap, subsonic drones, and a few medium-range missiles (some made by North Korea, of all places).
Losing the ability to watch and intercept "obsolete" weapons is quite risky. In 1960s, some cool newest-generation supersonic jet fighters got rid of cannons, because rockets felt so much more efficient. Using them in actual warfare quickly showed that rockets are not perfect, and expensive; you can run out of them, and become helpless.
The US has been in Greenland, and have had complete military control with it, for many decades. Doing its time there it has conducted a number of activities with very little regard for the people living there or the broader environment:
I get that this is posted to show that the "Art of the deal" has produced little novelties in the recent US-Denmark agreement:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
It does have the novelty that even under independence the US will continue to operate the bases. I'm not sure if Denmark thinks this is a poison pill for any independence movement.
The Golden Dome bases in Greenland are such a stupid pretext:
1) Russia has the Sarmat missile that flies over the South Pole and completely evades all northern installations.
2) Russia has the Poseidon nuclear torpedo that threatens the vast coastal areas of the US and is immune all that as well.
Also Trump seems to be allied with Russia. They got him elected and paid for his son's wedding and so on. He withdrew all support for Ukraine, and has put tariffs on practically every country except Russia. He has consistently pressured Ukraine to surrender and repeated Russian propoganda verbatim. He saved Putin a loss of face by pressuring Ukraine not to strike the last victory day parade. Even before he was president he handed Russia one of their biggest military victories by having maga follower Mike Pence block military aid to Ukraine for 6 months just after their offensive had culminated.
It's unfortunate you are getting down voted for pointing out pretty much what has happened.
Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were.
The people debating whether he's compromised are missing the point, if he's not then there is the much more interesting question of then why has his foreign policy been to their benefit?.
If it’s immaterial there’s no reason to bring it up. But while Trump hasn’t been as hawkish on Russia as I’d like him to be, I’m not entirely sure that “much of what he does” - whatever that is - is to the benefit of Russia.
Signing the Lindsey Graham bill isn’t for the benefit of Russia. Nor was stopping shadowfleet tankers from Venezuela and Iran.
I don't disagree with your details, but I am really not sure why the alternatives (Obama, Clinton, Biden) were somehow seen as tougher on Russia? All the invasions from Crimea in 2014, and 2023 were not under Trump administrations and the response from the US then was not effective at all.
It's debatable: funding and supporting a proxy since 2023 was a pretty effective way to keep Russia into a quagmire for years, seriously affecting their military, draining their finances, and isolating their economy - to the point that any non-military activity outside of the country has basically disappeared. Short of direct engagement, which is unfeasible due to MAD, it basically was the strongest response.
(2014 is different, in the sense that it was always going to happen if Ukraine ever managed to escape Russian orbit, and more or less everyone knew.)
Also, the previous deal didn’t let the U.S. expand its military presence without Denmark approval. And it was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty. The new deal is permanent.
I dont know why people think this isnt more permissive for the US.
Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference.
At one point the US had 17 small bases in Greenland. Almost all have been abandoned by the USA on its own initiative.
Look at this map: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-G...
Today there is only the small Thule/Pituffik base.
The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
Sure there is a difference. The old agreement required Danish agreement for new defense areas. They forfeited that control.
Its like saying an API requiring authorization is the same as one not requiring authorization if historically there were no unauthorized requests.
But Denmark could deny access. Formal agreements are important. You generally don’t leave this stuff up to chance or ambiguity if you don’t have to.
I’m confused by this. What good do satellites do? So you can watch an enemy armada sail by? There is more importance especially if/when these northern sea routes begin to have interdiction and further early warning systems available. I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
Formal agreements matter unless the counter-party is the US who will gleefully alter the deal the second it becomes inconvenient.
Yea totally the US is the only country that has ever disputed anything ever
You assume this deal was driven by military needs. And we all know what happens when one assumes...
I would be ready to bet that, considering how the current administration decapitated the military and installed yes-men at the top, this effort was not, in fact, driven by military needs.
You’re making your own assumptions while accusing me of being beholden to mine.
One can simply think about it and understand the military and strategic importance of Greenland and that the US may over time change its defensive posture in the region depending on various goals or situations.
Watching a scripted Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Senators and Generals agreeing on every topic that serves the Senators' districts and the generals' post-service Raytheon jobs: Yes, they know exactly what they are doing.
Ok what at what diplomatic price did the US get these concessions?
I would argue that the U.S didn’t even try to get this stuff so it’s not like Trump tried anything and used annexation as ultimatum.
Nothing is permanent and not this deal. You should know that by now if you watched the Trump stuff
Notice how in the current war in Europe Russia is not using ICBMs or nuclear torpedoes, and the bulk of the damage is dealt by vast numbers of small, cheap, subsonic drones, and a few medium-range missiles (some made by North Korea, of all places).
Losing the ability to watch and intercept "obsolete" weapons is quite risky. In 1960s, some cool newest-generation supersonic jet fighters got rid of cannons, because rockets felt so much more efficient. Using them in actual warfare quickly showed that rockets are not perfect, and expensive; you can run out of them, and become helpless.
In Danish media the new deal is widely being presented as a huge diplomatic victory for Denmark.
What did the US give up in the deal from its side?
On what grounds? The US didn't just take Greenland?
That what Trump got, was basically what could been negotiated by just asking nicely years ago. So lot of drama for nothing
They have tried 'asking nicely' but Denmark had been playing the independence card, claiming any deal would have to involve Greenlandic consent.
Last year's US-Denmark military basing agreement excluded Greenland for this 'reason'.
But both sides knew this was a deflection as Denmark has military and foreign relations responsibility for its "non-colony".
The US got fed up, pushed harder and apparently got what they wanted.
The US has been in Greenland, and have had complete military control with it, for many decades. Doing its time there it has conducted a number of activities with very little regard for the people living there or the broader environment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
(Accidental crash causing the (non-nuclear) explosion of 3 hydrogen bombs and the loss of a 4th.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm
(A network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites under the Greenland ice sheet.)
However after the cold war US activity there has been cut to a single base with just over 100 men.
So with the re-newed interest and a willigness to seriously mess up the NATO alliance - what does the US want in Greenland this time around?
Minerals, data centers, launch rockets into space, prepare for climate change, maybe something with the northern sea route?
It is very unclear.
US activities in Greenland have always been about strategic defense.
This latest enterprise likely has to do with a strategic missile defense system.
This assumes the US has a plan. It's a bold assumption.