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?
