Agreement between the USA and Denmark (1951,2004) [pdf]
state.govI get that this is posted to show that the "Art of the deal" has produced little novelties in the recent US-Denmark agreement:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
It does have the novelty that even under independence the US will continue to operate the bases. I'm not sure if Denmark thinks this is a poison pill for any independence movement.
The Golden Dome bases in Greenland are such a stupid pretext:
1) Russia has the Sarmat missile that flies over the South Pole and completely evades all northern installations.
2) Russia has the Poseidon nuclear torpedo that threatens the vast coastal areas of the US and is immune all that as well.
Notice how in the current war in Europe Russia is not using ICBMs or nuclear torpedoes, and the bulk of the damage is dealt by vast numbers of small, cheap, subsonic drones, and a few medium-range missiles (some made by North Korea, of all places).
Losing the ability to watch and intercept "obsolete" weapons is quite risky. In 1960s, some cool newest-generation supersonic jet fighters got rid of cannons, because rockets felt so much more efficient. Using them in actual warfare quickly showed that rockets are not perfect, and expensive; you can run out of them, and become helpless.
Also, the previous deal didn’t let the U.S. expand its military presence without Denmark approval. And it was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty. The new deal is permanent.
I dont know why people think this isnt more permissive for the US.
Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference.
At one point the US had 17 small bases in Greenland. Almost all have been abandoned by the USA on its own initiative.
Look at this map: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-G...
Today there is only the small Thule/Pituffik base.
The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
> Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference.
But Denmark could deny access. Formal agreements are important. You generally don’t leave this stuff up to chance or ambiguity if you don’t have to.
> The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
I’m confused by this. What good do satellites do? So you can watch an enemy armada sail by? There is more importance especially if/when these northern sea routes begin to have interdiction and further early warning systems available. I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
> I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
You assume this deal was driven by military needs. And we all know what happens when one assumes...
I would be ready to bet that, considering how the current administration decapitated the military and installed yes-men at the top, this effort was not, in fact, driven by military needs.
You’re making your own assumptions while accusing me of being beholden to mine.
One can simply think about it and understand the military and strategic importance of Greenland and that the US may over time change its defensive posture in the region depending on various goals or situations.
Meh - the US could have simply opened other bases if they really wanted to, since Danish approval has never been denied. They had loads in the past. This agreement changes nothing in practice.
Well it's still good to have it formalized in case someone tries to say well we never had an agreement
But there was an agreement. The fact that the Danish are celebrating because nothing has changed, should be a hint that the US got nothing more than they already had.
But we did get more than we had. Now it's a formal, indefinite agreement and not even Greenlandic sovereignty would legally change that. I think it's unlikely but you can imagine a world in which this agreement doesn't occur and then Greenland for purposes of financial gain hosts, say, Chinese ports or dual-use infrastructure. Without an invasion or something we would probably lack a legal recourse, whereas now we can point to some piece of paper as justification (as all countries do).
If nothing changed, then it was a good thing that we formalized nothing changing.
It's ok to just admit that the US got concessions from Denmark here.
I don't think you appreciate the huge diplomatic fallout that this "change nothing to change nothing" operation produced. It more than offsets any minor legalistic concession that might have been obtained. The US is now considered an unreliable partner by Europe not just on economic matters, but on military ones too. European countries are openly planning for a future where the US is not an ally, a situation that would be disastrous on both sides of the Atlantic. It made it completely unpalatable for Europeans to help the US in the very real Iran war, which is also ending up in the same way: a pointless exercise that destroyed decades of careful egemony-building efforts for no actual gain.
> I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
Watching a scripted Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Senators and Generals agreeing on every topic that serves the Senators' districts and the generals' post-service Raytheon jobs: Yes, they know exactly what they are doing.
Formal agreements matter unless the counter-party is the US who will gleefully alter the deal the second it becomes inconvenient.
>Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference.
Sure there is a difference. The old agreement required Danish agreement for new defense areas. They forfeited that control.
Its like saying an API requiring authorization is the same as one not requiring authorization if historically there were no unauthorized requests.
> Denmark never denied an approval
Which makes it telling that the USA is seeking the ability to go without approval. Sounds to me like they're planning something outrageous that Denmark wouldn't approve of.
or they need/enjoy the spectacle of asserting dominance over shaking hands.
> The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
They make a ton of sense if you want to control artic shipping and need a somewhat protected staging area from small drones for forward supply areas for Europe, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Ok what at what diplomatic price did the US get these concessions?
I would argue that the U.S didn’t even try to get this stuff so it’s not like Trump tried anything and used annexation as ultimatum.
Nothing is permanent and not this deal. You should know that by now if you watched the Trump stuff or the Russia deals with Ukraine or the U.S deal with Ukraine.
The biggest benefit in the update is the right of refusal on FDI in Greenland, e.g. Chinese port investment, etc. After that, survivability after Greenland independence which surely is inevitable.
My impression is that this infrastructure investment was underway, US said no way, Denmark was coy about it and future opportunities, US had a red line -> thus began the bluster. Now here we are with the US getting ability to 'advise' on any FDI.
This tracks with US activities and motivations in Panama, Venezuela.
In Danish media the new deal is widely being presented as a huge diplomatic victory for Denmark.
Who owns the media? Almost all German press is somehow owned by American companies.
On what grounds? The US didn't just take Greenland?
That what Trump got, was basically what could been negotiated by just asking nicely years ago. So lot of drama for nothing
They have tried 'asking nicely' but Denmark had been playing the independence card, claiming any deal would have to involve Greenlandic consent.
Last year's US-Denmark military basing agreement excluded Greenland for this 'reason'.
But both sides knew this was a deflection as Denmark has military and foreign relations responsibility for its "non-colony".
The US got fed up, pushed harder and apparently got what they wanted.
That part didn't change. The deal will only be in force once it has been formally ratified by the US, Denmark, and Greenland.
The constitutional status of Greenland's autonomy is somewhat unclear. If Danish parliament had the will, it's plausible that it could force a deal on Greenland by changing the relevant laws. But it's also likely that overcoming all the legal and constitutional obstacles would take years. Changing the constitution might actually be faster, but even that would involve general elections and a referendum.
Usually when someone threatens you they should get less, if anything.
What did the US give up in the deal from its side?
In the sense that it is for practical purposes the same deal as before.
Also Denmark does not want to go to war with the US - something that was considered a real scenario just a few months back when the Danes moved an unusual large military force to the island.
So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that Denmark should be celebrating the deal as a big win then does it? The US has gained, however much you belittle those gains, and Denmark gained what?
The US under Trump is seen a bit like a good strong friend who has gotten way too much to drink and wants to pick fights with everybody - giving him a symbolic win to avoid embarrassment is the right to do.
Anyways that’s the sentiment - you can look at dr.dk and similar via google translate if you want.
Also Trump seems to be allied with Russia. They got him elected and paid for his son's wedding and so on. He withdrew all support for Ukraine, and has put tariffs on practically every country except Russia. He has consistently pressured Ukraine to surrender and repeated Russian propoganda verbatim. He saved Putin a loss of face by pressuring Ukraine not to strike the last victory day parade. Even before he was president he handed Russia one of their biggest military victories by having maga follower Mike Pence block military aid to Ukraine for 6 months just after their offensive had culminated.
I don't disagree with your details, but I am really not sure why the alternatives (Obama, Clinton, Biden) were somehow seen as tougher on Russia? All the invasions from Crimea in 2014, and 2023 were not under Trump administrations and the response from the US then was not effective at all.
It's debatable: funding and supporting a proxy since 2023 was a pretty effective way to keep Russia into a quagmire for years, seriously affecting their military, draining their finances, and isolating their economy - to the point that any non-military activity outside of the country has basically disappeared. Short of direct engagement, which is unfeasible due to MAD, it basically was the strongest response.
(2014 is different, in the sense that it was always going to happen if Ukraine ever managed to escape Russian orbit, and more or less everyone knew.)
It's unfortunate you are getting down voted for pointing out pretty much what has happened.
Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were.
The people debating whether he's compromised are missing the point, if he's not then there is the much more interesting question of then why has his foreign policy been to their benefit?.
> Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were.
If it’s immaterial there’s no reason to bring it up. But while Trump hasn’t been as hawkish on Russia as I’d like him to be, I’m not entirely sure that “much of what he does” - whatever that is - is to the benefit of Russia.
Signing the Lindsey Graham bill isn’t for the benefit of Russia. Nor was stopping shadowfleet tankers from Venezuela and Iran.
I agree with this. There was historical evidence like Trump traveling to Russia in the 1980s and buying a huge, very expensive anti-NATO ad in a newspaper after he returned.
Then, like Epstein, he had many Russian contacts who sometimes "overpaid" for some of his real estate.
But overall: He was always against Russia's "friend" Iran, delivered Javelins to Ukraine during his first term. He cancelled the INF treaty.
The "row" with Zelensky in the White House was theater. In the full footage Trump winks at Zelesnky before kicking him out and Zelensky smiles and puts a thumb up.
Ukraine support is by no means halted. The EU is forced to pay more for the US proxy war, but the US still plans and decides.
Then he attacked Iran, Russia's ally.
So watch what he does and not what he says. You could also say that his Russia friendliness was a cover for the real plans.
Ok, if its 4d chess then: Causing prolonged chaos in the middle-east, spiking oil prices to historical highs. Just when Russia (a petro state) desperately needed and economic shot in the arm.
Maybe it's not 4d chess and instead it's just regular chess and doing things like taking on Iran is just unfortunately something we have to do.
> Just when Russia (a petro state) desperately needed and economic shot in the arm.
Like when you say things like this it doesn't make any sense. Trump stopped Venezuelan support of shadow fleet tankers, he has increased sanctions on Russia, and you can certainly argue if you want that the Iran was isn't going according to Trump's plans (which is ego of course has a substantial impact) but Iran was providing military support to Russia and also helping them evade sanctions.
So can you please point to the exact mechanism you are referring to that's giving Russia an economic shot in the arm? Because from what I can tell Russia isn't receiving any economic shots in the arm and instead is facing increased sanctions and better enforcement of those sanctions.
I think it's worth mentioning that both Denmark and Greenland likely would have welcomed more US military presence in the pre-Trump era.
The large and growing opposition to US presence in Greenland has largely grown out of the repeated explicit threats of military invasion and annexation, instead of just asking nicely.
The scary thing is how many Americans find these fascist optics and bullying tactics appealing and a display of "strength".
The US has been in Greenland, and have had complete military control with it, for many decades. Doing its time there it has conducted a number of activities with very little regard for the people living there or the broader environment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
(Accidental crash causing the (non-nuclear) explosion of 3 hydrogen bombs and the loss of a 4th.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Iceworm
(A network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites under the Greenland ice sheet.)
However after the cold war US activity there has been cut to a single base with just over 100 men.
So with the re-newed interest and a willigness to seriously mess up the NATO alliance - what does the US want in Greenland this time around?
Minerals, data centers, launch rockets into space, prepare for climate change, maybe something with the northern sea route?
It is very unclear.
US activities in Greenland have always been about strategic defense.
This latest enterprise likely has to do with a strategic missile defense system.
Or random spastic zone flooding. At this point the odds of a motivation being normal or rational are way below 50%.
> US activities in Greenland have always been about strategic defense.
Yes.
This is multifaceted, but my understanding is about control of the artic circle as the shipping lanes open up due to ice loss, and as a staging location for arms and supplies for forward deployed units in the northern hemisphere. Probably also some long range radars for better drone detection.
>The US has been in Greenland, and have had complete military control with it, for many decades.
Not quite.
They needed authorization from Denmark for establishing bases and the agreement was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty.
This new deal has neither constraints.
The power before was broad but this expands it.
No - the US could always do what they wanted - also in the old deal.
No. Again, it required Danish agreement and was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty.
From 1951:
> “ In order that the Government of the United States of America as a party to the North Atlantic Treaty may assist the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark by establishing and/or operating such defense areas as the two Governments, on the basis of NATO defense plans, may from time to time agree to be necessary for the development of the defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area, and which the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark is unable to establish and operate singlehanded …”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
And 2004:
>“Thule Air Base is the only defense area in Greenland. The provisions of Article II of the Defense Agreement shall apply to the establishment of new defense areas.”
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
Take a look at those Wikipedia pages I posted - do you the Danes or the Greenlanders ok’ed any of those things?!
> So with the re-newed interest and a willigness to seriously mess up the NATO alliance - what does the US want in Greenland this time around?
This assumes the US has a plan. It's a bold assumption.
I think (perhaps naively) that we do have a plan? Regardless, I have been trying to tell people in my life that the "really truly scary outcome" is not "what if everything falls apart" but "what if this works?"
I was thinking about this last night. I think the goal is "spheres of influence and Monroe doctrine stuff" and troublingly i think we might end up with more annexations in the next little bit.
If the US wanted to have more military control in Denmark, it wouldn't need this sort of ridiculous dance and a new deal.
It always could put military bases in Greenland. NATO was a thing, and Denmark never really bothered itself much with US military bases there. Greenland was not annexed by the US.
This is pretty much the same shit with the Iran war, the US now is scrambling to convince Iran to open the strait of Hormuz, just to get things in the same state they were before the war started.
> It always put military basses in Greenland
I don't think this is unilaterally true, from the first glance at this, it appears to be significantly more capability...
If the USA kept the status quo of being an ally it would never be a problem. It could only be a problem if the USA was hostile so the Danes could block additional bases (which had never happened, the USA built multiple bases in Greenland during the Cold War).
Leaving only one reason for wanting to rip apart the old agreement: in case the USA wasn't an ally anymore.
I mean, I ain't saying you're wrong. I don't like it, but the idea of non-transactional international relations is probably over...
> what does the US want in Greenland this time around?
Trump is a spectacular disaster on the domestic front, so the best he has is trying to bully other countries to make the worst Americans feel better that they're domineering someone (this is a Republican strategy as old as time). It's not unlike Putin and Russia, where a has been has a population that desperately tries to regain something from the past, however self-destructive and stupid it all is.
None of this nonsense, from the coup in Venezuela, to the impossibly stupid trade war with Canada, to destroying soft power worldwide, benefits the US at all. But it's all just for the presentation to an idiocracy (speaking specifically to Trump's base).
So, a lot of people are basically saying, "well, this is the same deal as before" and the more I hear about this the more I think, "actually, this looks like quite a bit of Greenlandic autonomy and self-governance has to be rolled through American approval channels first."
This looks like we basically annexed Greenland but don't have to spend tax dollars there except for defense, also, I'd bet American companies can do more business there... This is bananas...
Big win for Trump.
No mention of Epstein in the latest Denmark and restriction of the press news.
"Thank you for your inattention to this matter" .... DJT
EVERY action, repeat, EVERY ACTION since January 2025 has been to distract from Epstein.
Because not a single one makes sense except in this context.