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, 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: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-Greenland-during-WWII-the-air-base-of-our-interest-is-circled_fig1_373652483" rel="nofollow">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.
> 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.
Meh - the US could have simply opened other bases if they really wanted to, since Danish approval has never been denied. They had loads in the past. This agreement changes nothing in practice.
But there was an agreement. The fact that the Danish are celebrating because nothing has changed, should be a hint that the US got nothing more than they already had.
But we did get more than we had. Now it's a formal, indefinite agreement and not even Greenlandic sovereignty would legally change that. I think it's unlikely but you can imagine a world in which this agreement doesn't occur and then Greenland for purposes of financial gain hosts, say, Chinese ports or dual-use infrastructure. Without an invasion or something we would probably lack a legal recourse, whereas now we can point to some piece of paper as justification (as all countries do).
If nothing changed, then it was a good thing that we formalized nothing changing.
It's ok to just admit that the US got concessions from Denmark here.
I don't think you appreciate the huge diplomatic fallout that this "change nothing to change nothing" operation produced. It more than offsets any minor legalistic concession that might have been obtained. The US is now considered an unreliable partner by Europe not just on economic matters, but on military ones too. European countries are openly planning for a future where the US is not an ally, a situation that would be disastrous on both sides of the Atlantic. It made it completely unpalatable for Europeans to help the US in the very real Iran war, which is also ending up in the same way: a pointless exercise that destroyed decades of careful egemony-building efforts for no actual gain.
> 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.
Which makes it telling that the USA is seeking the ability to go without approval. Sounds to me like they're planning something outrageous that Denmark wouldn't approve of.
> The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
They make a ton of sense if you want to control artic shipping and need a somewhat protected staging area from small drones for forward supply areas for Europe, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East.
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 or the Russia deals with Ukraine or the U.S deal with Ukraine.
The biggest benefit in the update is the right of refusal on FDI in Greenland, e.g. Chinese port investment, etc. After that, survivability after Greenland independence which surely is inevitable.
My impression is that this infrastructure investment was underway, US said no way, Denmark was coy about it and future opportunities, US had a red line -> thus began the bluster. Now here we are with the US getting ability to 'advise' on any FDI.
This tracks with US activities and motivations in Panama, Venezuela.
21921276 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o" rel="nofollow">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.
nonethewiser · · focus · HN ↗
I dont know why people think this isnt more permissive for the US.
silvestrov · · focus · HN ↗
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: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-Greenland-during-WWII-the-air-base-of-our-interest-is-circled_fig1_373652483" rel="nofollow">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.
nonethewiser · · focus · HN ↗
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.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
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.
3eb7988a1663 · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
toyg · · focus · HN ↗
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.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
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.
toyg · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
toyg · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
If nothing changed, then it was a good thing that we formalized nothing changing.
It's ok to just admit that the US got concessions from Denmark here.
toyg · · focus · HN ↗
301927-1927 · · focus · HN ↗
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.
jeroenhd · · focus · HN ↗
Which makes it telling that the USA is seeking the ability to go without approval. Sounds to me like they're planning something outrageous that Denmark wouldn't approve of.
aranelsurion · · focus · HN ↗
esseph · · focus · HN ↗
They make a ton of sense if you want to control artic shipping and need a somewhat protected staging area from small drones for forward supply areas for Europe, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East.
theplumber · · focus · HN ↗
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 or the Russia deals with Ukraine or the U.S deal with Ukraine.
aksss · · focus · HN ↗
My impression is that this infrastructure investment was underway, US said no way, Denmark was coy about it and future opportunities, US had a red line -> thus began the bluster. Now here we are with the US getting ability to 'advise' on any FDI.
This tracks with US activities and motivations in Panama, Venezuela.