Toggle sidebar

US to station troops in Greenland permanently

  • Thread starter Thread starter x65943
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 279
  • Replies Replies 12
  • Likes Likes 1
  • Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions. Saying NO to fascists/nazis - if you are one of those, you are not welcome here
x65943

x65943

Attack car enjoyer
Supervisor
GBAtemp Patron
Level 46
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
7,689
Solutions
3
Reaction score
52,180
Trophies
11
Location
Taekwondo Gym
XP
49,239
Country
United States
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/
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOnYa
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/
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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."
Click to expand...
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?
 
SeltzerMist said:
Will this bring down the cost of oil?
Click to expand...
1789835750652.png
 
Finally some good news on this front. :)

Yeah, i get the fears. This time, I don't share them. As mentioned, they had an agreement that hadn't been changed in around 75 years. Meaning: before climate change was ever mentioned. And Trump's annexation fetish conceals that the melting of ice will open new trade routes, making northern territory more important. Belgium and other EU member states also increase their military presence there... It'd be unfair to not let the us have the same, only because of king of prime minister isn't sharing stupid ai memes

Also..mercatorian maps never showed the true scale of the hemispheres. Greenland isn't that big, which means that there always was a closer and unguarded route between the us and, say, Russia. Us military presence is logical, at the very least to keep radar checks going.

x65943 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Some people overreact. In Belgium we have kleine broghel, a us military base that's likely to hold nuclear weapons (not confirmed, because of the nature). We're much smaller and even better politically situated for annexation. Should we be afraid of that as well?

Of course it changes when that Greenland us presence starts doing things like defend that illegal us contractor that brought in drilling materials without a permit. But then we'll invoke nato and we'll have the 'hilarious' situation in which the usa will be forced upon the usa itself. But i don't see it come to that. Perhaps if you weren't in so much political turmoil, but... Well... You are.
 
If what I read is true, and the US can veto troops from x country from being in Greenland, then that sounds like they're signing away part of their sovereignty. The new agreement also allows the US to veto Greenland/Denmark from allowing maritime facilities and mining agreement from x country.

This sounds like Greenland is becoming a puppet state. I guess they already are a puppet state of Denmark. I think the biggest fear for the US, was that the 1951 agreement not applying to Greenland. I think there is also a similar fear over Scotland.
 
Greenland not that smart to vote away more talks with the EU. Then again, there's this wave of stupidity in the world where every flea thinks they can be a rich master and instead they end up being poor servants.
 
Dark_Ansem said:
why are they good news?
Click to expand...
Because the soldiers that are there aren't starving on the Abraham? :P


But seriously... It's good news because it's in negotiation with Greenland and Denmark. This isn't the one sided bullshit Trump show but actually how these things are supposed to work.


Btw... The original article is paywalled here. I just read elsewhere that Trump somehow thinks that he has a say in whatever else military sets up shop there (Greenland and Norway still have sovereignty on their soil), which obviously isn't true, but the actual grownups in the treaty see it as a positive for their citizens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Site & Scene News

Go to forum More news

Popular threads in this forum