"Trump announced the
agreement last week after months of threatening to use force to gain control of the Arctic island, which is a semi-autonomous part of Denmark. Details on the deal have now begun to emerge. Reuters reported that the US plans to re-establish a Cold War-era military base at Narsarsuaq, in southern Greenland.... The other site is on the east coast of Greenland....The US, Denmark and Greenland are expected to sign the agreement at the United Nations general assembly in New York on Tuesday...."
Here's the NYT article on the subject: "Negotiators have been working for months on issues including the deployment of more American troops in Greenland, the territory’s mineral resources and ways of blocking Russia and China from gaining a foothold there. Russia and China have been stepping up their presence in the Arctic, sometimes working together, which Mr. Trump has used to justify his desire to annex Greenland...."
AND: This makes more sense now:
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
Thank God we've saved Greenland from the Ruskiees. Now, we will have enough ice cubes for our Soft drinks.
BTW, I thought we wanted control because Greenland had special rare earth minerals. DId we get the rights to those?
This is an excellent outcome. Despite the usual conventional-wisdom ridicule, President Trump produced results on this front. There seems to be all too good a chance that we will find ourselves greatly advantaged by this outcome, someday; and a couple of our enemies suitably disadvantaged. Let freedom ring.
…suck it whiners…
This all part of Trump’s plan to fortify the western hemisphere while giving the finger to the Euroweenies. Look for an announcement of the U.S. pulling troops out of Europe and closing bases.
"Russia and China have been stepping up their presence in the Arctic, sometimes working together, which Mr. Trump has used to justify his desire to annex Greenland...."
How do you know someone's a complete dirtbag of a liar, whose favored politicians are all dirtbag liars? The fact that he can't even GRASP the idea that the situation my drive the desire, rather than that the situation is used as an excuse for the desire.
America's enemies were acting, so Trump acted to cut them off. That a President, ANY President, could act for the good of America is something the writers of that story can't even grasp
RCO said: “Thank God we've saved Greenland from the Ruskiees.”
It’s not the Ruskies you dodo, it’s the Chi-Coms.
So, I guess the United States is low on munitions.
The cowards and traitors would love to say the United States is low on munitions. It's not true. We have more munitions than we could ever possibly think of using, and are building them up now at levels we have never seen before. President DONALD J. TRUMP
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/117314399826449877
This all part of Trump’s plan to fortify the western hemisphere while giving the finger to the Euroweenies. Look for an announcement of the U.S. pulling troops out of Europe and closing bases.
Umm, Denmark is a member of NATO. Therefore, Trump is actually expanding his commitment to NATO. Can you explain what in the agreement reached is materially different from the 1951 agreement on basing in Greenland? (You can't, because the details of this great deal have not been released.)
From Gemini: Critical Metals Corp. (an American-backed company developing the massive Tanbreez heavy rare earth deposit in southern Greenland) has been central to U.S. critical mineral supply chain strategies. This follows a major 15-year offtake agreement signed with U.S. magnet manufacturer REalloys for 15% of Phase 1 production, alongside ongoing backing evaluations from the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Additionally, U.S.-based Greenland Mines finalized a $35 million acquisition of the Sarfartoq Rare Earths Project in southwest Greenland, which targets neodymium and praseodymium for electric vehicles and defense tech.
Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule AFB) is a hardship post. Do we need two more?
From Gemini: Historically, American military presence and basing rights in Greenland (most notably at Pituffik Space Base) were governed by the 1951 U.S.–Denmark Defense of Greenland Agreement, which was established under and explicitly tied to the collective framework of the North Atlantic Treaty. The Vulnerability Before: Legal analysts previously pointed out that because the 1951 arrangement was structurally intertwined with NATO, a unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the alliance could trigger a fundamental change of circumstances under international law. This would have given Denmark strong legal ground to revoke the defense agreement and require the U.S. to relinquish its military footprint on the island. The Shift Now: The new bilateral/trilateral arrangement is designed to be a standalone, permanent pact ("Infinite Life") that guarantees U.S. security control and expansion rights independently. By severing the absolute legal tie to NATO's existence, the agreement ensures that a U.S. withdrawal from the alliance would no longer automatically invalidate American basing rights or force a withdrawal from Greenland.
I do not normally correct President Trump, but it is OUR hemisphere. .
I do not normally correct President Trump, but it is OUR hemisphere.
Oh aren't you just precious!
I don't think he sees it that way.
Stay gold, Ponyboy! 🤣
Freder:
2 huge differences:
The treaty is between US, Denmark AND Greenland. Greenland was not party to the 1951 agreement. This means that if Greenland becomes independent, the treaty remains in force. Previously, if Greenland became independent, the 51 treaty was null and void and a new one would be needed.
The second and huge one is NATO. The old treaty required the US to remain in NATO and NATO to continue in existence. The US leaving NATO might have meant giving up access to Greenland. Now, we can stay or leave and out access to and relation with Greenland remains the same.
Funny you missed these 2 points, Freder.
John Henry
"Now, we can stay or leave and out access to and relation with Greenland remains the same. "
Clarification:
Now, we can stay in or leave NATO and our access to and relation with Greenland remains the same.
"Funny you missed these 2 points, Freder."
Time and again I am struck by how cloistered Freder's news-source selections must be.
Has he been awarded the Greenland Victory Medal?
If not, why not?
Someone said we were pulling troops out of Yurp. Not sure this is true but we are moving them to Poland.
Also, with Russia now threatening Estonia, now would be a good time for the US to leave NATO. Just as soon as the Greenland deal is signed.
John Henry
Hey, Freder! Here's an easy to read chart!
Freder Frederson said...
This all part of Trump’s plan to fortify the western hemisphere while giving the finger to the Euroweenies. Look for an announcement of the U.S. pulling troops out of Europe and closing bases.
Umm, Denmark is a member of NATO. Therefore, Trump is actually expanding his commitment to NATO.
John beat me to it. The whole point of this, Freder old symp, is that NATO is irrelevant to this agreement, unlike the previous one.
If only you could read, you'd have figured that out, and not made an idiot out of yourself for the rest of us
A novel Greenland deal.
Helicopter president? No, there are diverse precedents.
Some kind of agreement? My craving for Greenland does not feel satiated. If anything this is an appetizer. I want more.
You can get more with a kind word and the United States Military than you can with a kind word alone.
Honestly I suspect dementia. Along with the usual Trump issues of sociopathy, narcissism, corruption and megalomania. The man’s not all there. Wonder if the GOP will act once they are defeated in the midterms.
More projectile commenting from IEE:
Someone whose comments are as numerous, lengthy, repetitious, and low-quality as his - when they are even his, and not cut-and-pasted from others - obviously suffers from "sociopathy, narcissism, corruption and megalomania" himself, to such a degree that dementia may be suspected.
Freder:
"Umm, Denmark is a member of NATO. Therefore, Trump is actually expanding his commitment to NATO. Can you explain what in the agreement reached is materially different from the 1951 agreement on basing in Greenland? (You can't, because the details of this great deal have not been released.)"
Yes. The new agreement, unlike the old one, is not dependent upon Denmark, or Greenland, or the U.S. being a member of NATO. Also it stays in place if Greenland becomes independent from Denmark.
Which gives Trump flexibility from NATO. Including the flexibility to drop out. Thus leverage over Europe.
Those "details" have been public for several days now.
Or what the other commenters said above.
Narsarsuaq is not technically a deep-water port, although it can probably accommodate the new icebreakers, if not larger bluewater naval vessels. The east coast location isn't mentioned, or is behind the paywall. I'd be surprised if there isn't a deepwater port that can accommodate the boomers in the works, though.
Looking forward to the Althouse post regarding Trump’s UN speech today.
“𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦,” 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 “𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘺” 𝘪𝘧 𝘛𝘦𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘜𝘚 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 “𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥”.
This is very strange as I have repeatedly been assured that Teheran is desperate, begging for a deal. And has already been annihilated many times.
"Those "details" have been public for several days now."
Not in the sources Freder chooses to read.
Now all that remains is a Tuborg summit with Mads Mikkelsen
and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau to smooth over all the ruffled feathers. Victor Borge too, but he doesn't seem to be answering his calls lately.
Once the deal is signed in ink, the next move is to get us out of NATO.
* (You can't, because the details of this great deal have not been released.)*
Yes, they have. Look 'em up.
There are huge differences between 1951/2004 and this one ... most notably, we maintain control even if NATO ceases to exist.
Also, we have the final say on who can and cannot access Greenland. That wasn't the case before.
I won't argue with you because you choose to remain ignorant. But this could quite possibly be Trump's lasting legacy.
*Funny you missed these 2 points, Freder.*
He chooses to miss those points, and others. That's why it's a waste of time arguing with him.
"He chooses to miss those points, and others."
It's either "choose to miss" or "recognize the benefits" to the US arranged for by Donald Trump. And *that's* not going to happen, so...
Freder’s question about changes since 1951 is a good one. Adding two more sites and opening up access are big steps forward, and John Henry is right about the new mention of a possibly independent Greenland. Still, the agreement notes that an independent Greenland would need to stay in NATO. Because of that, there’s nothing here to show the U.S. could leave NATO and keep the same rights.
The “His Hemisphere” image really catches the eye, especially with President Trump’s talk about lasting control. The deal keeps Denmark in charge and respects Greenland’s choice to decide its own future. It gives the U.S. more military access without taking ownership of Greenland or its minerals. It feels like a big step, even if it doesn’t match the full takeover suggested by the picture.
"I thought we wanted control because Greenland had special rare earth minerals. DId we get the rights to those?".
Well I don't know....let's read the excerpt from the NYT supplied by our hostess. Well, gee, lookie here, "...the territory’s mineral resources".
"Still, the agreement notes that an independent Greenland would need to stay in NATO. *Because of that*, there’s nothing here to show the U.S. could leave NATO and keep the same rights."
The one does not follow from the other.
As I recall, after Ron Howard left Happy Days, his departure was explained as Richie having been drafted and stationed in Greenland.
Therefore, Trump is actually expanding his commitment to NATO.
One of the most important revisions to the 1951 agreement is that the bases in Greenland are no longer contingent on NATO’s existence or our participation in it. So, no.
JAORE said...
"I thought we wanted control because Greenland had special rare earth minerals. DId we get the rights to those?".
It's to control the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America. The mineral wealth is a benefit, but there are easier places to access rare earths.
If you've ever played Risk, you know what's going on.
What's not to like? Ask a prog Democrat.
Trump didn't win with the Greenland agreement. If he had won we would have heard about six buck gas in the comments.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.