US to station troops in Greenland permanently

x65943 · 2026-09-19T13:19:19+0100

US, Denmark and Greenland agreed yesterday to allow the construction of a US military base on Greenland and a permanent deployment of American troops.

This announcement comes after months of threats by the American president regarding annexation of the territory either by sale or by force. The rhetoric had notably caused shock and confusion among longtime allies and NATO members.

It remains to be seen what happens next. Some consider the placement of US troops in the territory may be poised for future annexation. Greenland's population of 57,000 people has limited ability for self defense.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...us-deal-will-not-cede-sovereignty-2026-09-19/

SeltzerMist · 2026-09-19T13:48:06+0100

Will this bring down the cost of oil?

titan_tim · 2026-09-19T16:12:04+0100

x65943 said:
US, Denmark and Greenland agreed yesterday to allow the construction of a US military base on Greenland and a permanent deployment of American troops.

This announcement comes after months of threats by the American president regarding annexation of the territory either by sale or by force. The rhetoric had notably caused shock and confusion among longtime allies and NATO members.

It remains to be seen what happens next. Some consider the placement of US troops in the territory may be poised for future annexation. Greenland's population of 57,000 people has limited ability for self defense.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...us-deal-will-not-cede-sovereignty-2026-09-19/

Looking at the details, it looks like another "deal" which is something that was in place already. Blowing smoke in order to attempt to find SOMETHING to put into their midterm commercials.

He's saying it all permanent, when the 1951 agreement never really had an expiry date. It gives the opportunity for military base expansion, Which wasn't really an issue before. The main thing is it's more explicit on the exclusion of non-NATO members, which wasn't an issue, but may be some day. I don't think we've gotten any info about mineral mining rights, which would be the only thing that would actually help the US.

Hanafuda · 2026-09-19T17:05:55+0100

titan_tim said:
Looking at the details, it looks like another "deal" which is something that was in place already. Blowing smoke in order to attempt to find SOMETHING to put into their midterm commercials.

He's saying it all permanent, when the 1951 agreement never really had an expiry date. It gives the opportunity for military base expansion, Which wasn't really an issue before. The main thing is it's more explicit on the exclusion of non-NATO members, which wasn't an issue, but may be some day. I don't think we've gotten any info about mineral mining rights, which would be the only thing that would actually help the US.

The 1951 agreement lasts only so long as NATO exists and Greenland is a part of NATO. Not an expiration that is likely in the immediate future, but as you acknowledged, "may be some day."

The new agreement is permanent. Not a huge difference, but "may be some day." I still think it's being overhyped though.

titan_tim · 2026-09-19T17:23:16+0100

Hanafuda said:
The 1951 agreement lasts only so long as NATO exists and Greenland is a part of NATO. Not an expiration that is likely in the immediate future, but as you acknowledged, "may be some day."

That's a difference, but strange. If the agreement is in perpetuity with or without NATO, I'm not sure why they would have another clause that talks about non-NATO members. If NATO was to disband and the agreement was still in place, who would decide who was considered a non-NATO member at that point?

Asia81 · 2026-09-19T17:35:54+0100

SeltzerMist said:
Will this bring down the cost of oil?

US to station troops in Greenland permanently

Attack car enjoyer

Well-Known Member

(Can't shut up)

Well-Known Member

(Can't shut up)

Yuri Lover ~

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum