3 ms·

They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denmark-Defense.done_.pdf

They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denmark-Defense.done_.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...

shadowtree 7d ago
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future. The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said. It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States". The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening". The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors". Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
- ceejayoz 7d ago
  They already had these sorts of things (and Denmark, as a NATO member, was already pretty unlikely to permit Russian basing there). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp "United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland" "the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment" etc.
  - ericmay 7d ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 7d ago
      > Sure but maybe we have them in a much more important and secure way. Sure, and maybe the reflecting pool is clean and sparkly.
      - ericmay 7d ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 7d ago
        Ah, a truly classic ad hominem. I do not have to take the Trump administration at its word. I'm not a moron.
        ericmay 7d ago
        Snarky comments deserve snarky replies so there you have it. You won’t have to take the Trump administrations word you’ll just have to read the agreement and accept the facts of it even if it doesn’t fit your preconceived political narrative.
        ceejayoz 7d ago
        > Snarky comments deserve snarky replies so there you have it. "Maybe the Trump administration isn't lying" deserves a snarky comment. > you’ll just have to read the agreement Until it's available, I'm very comfortable not taking the claims of the "vandals cut a 300+ foot long hole in the reflecting pool" people at face value.
        ericmay 7d ago
        > "Maybe the Trump administration isn't lying" deserves a snarky comment. Sure just stop complaining about it then > Until it's available, I'm very comfortable not taking the claims of the "vandals cut a 300+ foot long hole in the reflecting pool" people at face value. Ok great story

shadowtree 7d ago

"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future. The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said. It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States". The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening". The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors". Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o

ceejayoz 7d ago
They already had these sorts of things (and Denmark, as a NATO member, was already pretty unlikely to permit Russian basing there). https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp "United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland" "the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment" etc.
- ericmay 7d ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 7d ago
    > Sure but maybe we have them in a much more important and secure way. Sure, and maybe the reflecting pool is clean and sparkly.
    - ericmay 7d ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 7d ago
        Ah, a truly classic ad hominem. I do not have to take the Trump administration at its word. I'm not a moron.
        ericmay 7d ago
        Snarky comments deserve snarky replies so there you have it. You won’t have to take the Trump administrations word you’ll just have to read the agreement and accept the facts of it even if it doesn’t fit your preconceived political narrative.
        ceejayoz 7d ago
        > Snarky comments deserve snarky replies so there you have it. "Maybe the Trump administration isn't lying" deserves a snarky comment. > you’ll just have to read the agreement Until it's available, I'm very comfortable not taking the claims of the "vandals cut a 300+ foot long hole in the reflecting pool" people at face value.
        ericmay 7d ago
        > "Maybe the Trump administration isn't lying" deserves a snarky comment. Sure just stop complaining about it then > Until it's available, I'm very comfortable not taking the claims of the "vandals cut a 300+ foot long hole in the reflecting pool" people at face value. Ok great story