3 ms·

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 d

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.

silvestrov 7d ago
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-Greenland-during-WWII-the-air-base-of-our-interest-is-circled_fig1_373652483 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 7d ago
  >Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. 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 7d ago
  > 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.
  - 3eb7988a1663 7d ago
    Formal agreements matter unless the counter-party is the US who will gleefully alter the deal the second it becomes inconvenient.
    - ericmay 7d ago
      [flagged]
  - toyg 7d ago
    > 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.
    - ericmay 7d ago
      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.
      - toyg 6d ago
        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.
        ericmay 6d ago
        Well it's still good to have it formalized in case someone tries to say well we never had an agreement
        6d ago
- jeroenhd 7d ago
  > Denmark never denied an approval 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 7d ago
    or they need/enjoy the spectacle of asserting dominance over shaking hands.
- esseph 7d ago
  > 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.
theplumber 7d ago
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.

silvestrov 7d ago

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-Greenland-during-WWII-the-air-base-of-our-interest-is-circled_fig1_373652483 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 7d ago
>Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. 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 7d ago
> 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.
- 3eb7988a1663 7d ago
  Formal agreements matter unless the counter-party is the US who will gleefully alter the deal the second it becomes inconvenient.
  - ericmay 7d ago
    [flagged]
- toyg 7d ago
  > 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.
  - ericmay 7d ago
    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.
    - toyg 6d ago
      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.
      - ericmay 6d ago
        Well it's still good to have it formalized in case someone tries to say well we never had an agreement
        6d ago
jeroenhd 7d ago
> Denmark never denied an approval 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 7d ago
  or they need/enjoy the spectacle of asserting dominance over shaking hands.
esseph 7d ago
> 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.

theplumber 7d ago

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.