US-Denmark reach deal over Greenland

[F-22Raptor]

View attachment 216154

What the US has gained is "veto" power over investments that Greenlanders have said they will never allow to take place. The US has not gained investment rights into minerals extraction, ie veto over others. Logically, what has changed given Greenland's stance on this matter?

View attachment 216155

This was never going to happen, so what was materially significant or practical achieved here? What has changed over something that was not going to take place?

View attachment 216156

So, the right to veto investments, but not the right to do investments itself for the USA, ie USA does not gain new rights to invest in mineral extraction and the Greenlanders have been clear they have no plans for any mineral extraction work by anyone ever.. they want to keep Greenland clean, and prestine... so what was materially significant or practical achieved here?
View attachment 216157

So, a permanent no to Russian/Chinese troops that were never going to be allowed onto Greenland in the first place, and a permanent veto over investments that were never going to take place ever and the right for USA tax payers to build military bases in Greenland to protect Greenlanders itself...A right, i might add it had since the 1951 agreement with both Denmark and Greenland both stating there are were never, and are no restrictions on military deployments under the 1951 agreement. ie materially insignificant..

Is this really winning? Or have you been smoking orange tinted copium for a little bit too long?

Yes it’s winning when you gain total military and economic control over a territory that now has no say on matters. An the US didn’t have to pay a dime for it.

Your whole premise is illogical. You “think” adversaries will never attack or undermine US interests in Greenland thereby the US should do nothing. No, it’s better to be proactive and lock in control of Greenland in perpetuity.

The US has conducted a soft annexation of Greenland and locked in control over the high north and Arctic region. Yes that is absolutely a W

 

[Watandar]

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.

The US already has more than 100 military personnel permanently stationed at its Pituffik base in the north-western tip of the territory.

BBC News source.

So its a nothing burger just to get a high rise in the levis of maga addicted simpletons

His Maga addicts are rudely awoken from their stupor everytime they visit a gas station. These elevated energy prices are a massive headache for Trump and neither this pointless "win" nor his culture war stuff are going to save him and his party in the upcoming elections.

 

[KingQamaR]

This is just a renewal of the old treaty from 1951. Trump is making it out to all sort of things that is not.

 

[KingQamaR]

He signs in pencil , or crayons

 

[Ali_Baba]

Yes it’s winning when you gain total military and economic control over a territory that now has no say on matters. An the US didn’t have to pay a dime for it.

Your whole premise is illogical. You “think” adversaries will never attack or undermine US interests in Greenland thereby the US should do nothing. No, it’s better to be proactive and lock in control of Greenland in perpetuity.

The US has conducted a soft annexation of Greenland and locked in control over the high north and Arctic region. Yes that is absolutely a W

By every measure the USA has not gained any new military control than it already had. And the power of veto for mineral exploration, is not the same as economic control. There is are two tiny tiny ass mines in Greenland, and Greenland has gone on record to say it won't allow for mining of any critical minerals of any type for any one.

The US has gotten nothing new of any substance, and that is why, even now, the text has not been released as it will be so embarrassing for the orange idiot.