US might be given sovereignty over military bases in Greenland

[FfFfFfFF 58,749]

After Trump’s Ultimatum, Greenland Talks Include Sovereign U.S. Bases, No Drilling for Russia

Negotiators have discussed proposals to check Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic and transfer sovereignty over pockets of Greenlandic land to the United States, an idea opposed by Denmark.

Negotiations to resolve the future of Greenland have focused in recent days on proposals to increase NATO’s presence in the Arctic, give America a sovereign claim to pockets of Greenland’s territory and block potentially hostile adversaries from mining the island’s minerals.

Those elements, described by eight senior Western security and diplomatic officials, offer the fullest picture yet of the contours of a potential Greenland compromise that President Trump announced on Wednesday without details. His move appeared to at least temporarily defuse an American-made trans-Atlantic crisis over the Danish territory.

Critically, the proposals under discussion would stop short of Mr. Trump’s goal of transferring ownership of all of Greenland to the United States from Denmark, according to the officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. The officials cautioned that many details have yet to be finalized.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/world/europe/trump-greenland-deal-framework.html

Edited January 22 by FfFfFfFF

[FfFfFfFF 58,749]

The British bases in Cyprus are noted as legal international precedent

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,290]

I love the absolute nothingness of this. Fully like giving a pacifier to a baby.

[Laxy 408]

Good grief. I hope they drag this out to distract him from whatever he tries to do next.

[Diamond Blood 4,552]

[Ayesha Erotica 1,963]

1. That would be a bad deal for Greenland. 

2. If Greenland is surrounded by 16 American military bases, who guarantees Greenland that a future Republican president won't annex Greenland very quickly? Then it would be incredibly easy, because there would be no need to send troops there, since they would already be there.

3. Even if Greenland/Denmark remains sovereign over it, the fact that there will be around 16 military bases is intimidating, and the US will exert a huge influence on Denmark's decisions. It is nevertheless a loss of sovereignty.

4. The Russia-China threat is overestimated. If they were to be annexed, NATO could later liberate them.

According to this logic, Iceland and Norway would also have to be part of the USA / give USA sovereign military bases.

 

 

[PartySick 174,289]

14 minutes ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

1. That would be a bad deal for Greenland. 

2. If Greenland is surrounded by 16 American military bases, who guarantees Greenland that a future Republican president won't annex Greenland very quickly? Then it would be incredibly easy, because there would be no need to send troops there, since they would already be there.

3. Even if Greenland/Denmark remains sovereign over it, the fact that there will be around 16 military bases is intimidating, and the US will exert a huge influence on Denmark's decisions. It is nevertheless a loss of sovereignty.

4. The Russia-China threat is overestimated. If they were to be annexed, NATO could later liberate them.

According to this logic, Iceland and Norway would also have to be part of the USA / give USA sovereign military bases.

They're just re-establishing bases that used to exist there and technically, any US military base around the world is considered "US territory". Not through ownership per se but rather legal recognition.

Denmark and Greenland were already willing to partner with the US before Trump's threats. They've given nothing they weren't willing to already and they've given him a way to weasel his way out of something 86% of Americans don't support.

The extra US military presence also increases Greenland and NATOs defenses.

It's a win/win/win.

As for the fear of future American invasion, it's still an insanely stupid thing to do. Barring the fact that it would destroy NATO, cripple America's standing internationally, and significantly weaken our own national defense, Denmark literally has to subsidize the lives of people in Greenland due to how inhospitable much of the island is.

So, weaken yourself immensely and trash the country's reputation just to take ownership of a frozen rock that'll literally cost you more money to hold than it'll ever turn in profit while also having to constantly squash rebellions from a population where only 6% support joining the US at all and fight back European forces that'll no doubt come to the aid of Greenlanders?

It just makes zero sense and Trump's threats, as always, were just ego fueled bluster.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,963]

21 minutes ago, PartySick said:

They're just re-establishing bases that used to exist there and technically, any US military base around the world is considered "US territory". Not through ownership per se but rather legal recognition.

Denmark and Greenland were already willing to partner with the US before Trump's threats. 

 

The very existence of US bases in foreign countries already is intimidating and gives the US a greater say in the affairs of this country; it is already undermining sovereignty. One could say that it is happening voluntarily, but somehow it is also happening under pressure, under emergency circumstances, etc.

It is simply an observation that the US can set up bases wherever it wants in allied countries, with the exception of France, which has nuclear weapons, but the allied countries do not have bases in the US,  which shows an asymmetry which shows that military bases are a kind of usurpation of sovereignty in themselves

The Danes wanted to do it, yes, in all aspects, the Danes are lulled by the USA, the Danes are so worried about losing Greenland that they are allowing the US to do whatever it wants, as long as they keep sovereignity.

But the Greenlanders themselves are divided on the issue of military use by the US. They want good economic relations, yes. But the Greenlanders themselves have never agreed to military use. And it makes sense because it comes with risks for them (as I've written in the other topic--->

). It comes with the real risk of being radioactively contaminated again and that's a good reason for Greenlanders to be against it, while the Danes simply don't care because a nuclear explosion thousand of miles away does not affect them on their European territory.  

They were conquered by Denmark against their will, then briefly conquered by the US during World War II, and the Danes unilaterally decided with the US to establish military bases, and the Danes couldn't really do anything about it. They could only say yes or never get Greenland back.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,963]

and well ,that's basically also why if I were the Greenlandish president/leader , I would cancel and terminate the "1951 Agreement Allowing US Military in Greenland"-Treaty because it is a colonial-style treaty made under pressure and just keep the 1 US military base.

And I would invite some European countries to make two more military bases to counterbalance the 1 US base. These two would also be under NATO and that would be enough 

Russia hasn't conquered nearby Ukraine in 4 years so it won't GL which is across an Arctic Ocean inbetween 

Greenland doesn't owe US anything 

I would tell the US president to make these bases in Alaska or Canada, to locate their garbage there 

but well.... Greenland still is a colony and ruled by Denmark and Denmark will probably agree 16 non-sovereign military bases which is equal to an occupation without calling it so 

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,290]

18 minutes ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

 

The very existence of US bases in foreign countries already is intimidating and gives the US a greater say in the affairs of this country; it is already undermining sovereignty. One could say that it is happening voluntarily, but somehow it is also happening under pressure, under emergency circumstances, etc.

It is simply an observation that the US can set up bases wherever it wants in allied countries, with the exception of France, which has nuclear weapons, but the allied countries do not have bases in the US,  which shows an asymmetry which shows that military bases are a kind of usurpation of sovereignty in themselves

The Danes wanted to do it, yes, in all aspects, the Danes are lulled by the USA, the Danes are so worried about losing Greenland that they are allowing the US to do whatever it wants, as long as they keep sovereignity.

But the Greenlanders themselves are divided on the issue of military use by the US. They want good economic relations, yes. But the Greenlanders themselves have never agreed to military use. And it makes sense because it comes with risks for them (as I've written in the other topic--->

). It comes with the real risk of being radioactively contaminated again and that's a good reason for Greenlanders to be against it, while the Danes simply don't care because a nuclear explosion thousand of miles away does not affect them on their European territory.  

They were conquered by Denmark against their will, then briefly conquered by the US during World War II, and the Danes unilaterally decided with the US to establish military bases, and the Danes couldn't really do anything about it. They could only say yes or never get Greenland back.

This sounds an awful lot like conceding it’s a lateral move without conceding that it’s a lateral move lol

[PartySick 174,289]

1 minute ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

Greenland still is a colony and ruled by Denmark and Denmark will probably agree 16 non-sovereign military bases which is equal to an occupation without calling it so 

I mean. No? Not really? Denmark has something called the Self Government Act (or some sh*t, idk I was listening to podcasts earlier at work lmao).

Greenland could easily vote to become independent should they so desire but, as stated before, they basically rely on Denmark to exist. It's not a self sustaining territory.

20 minutes ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

It is simply an observation that the US can set up bases wherever it wants in allied countries, with the exception of France, which has nuclear weapons, but the allied countries do not have bases in the US,  which shows an asymmetry which shows that military bases are a kind of usurpation of sovereignty in themselves

Well, that's kind of the trade off isn't it? Those bases benefit the countries they're built in too. Allowing the US to exert power from their nations protects them and creates a greater blanket defense against the likes of Russia or whatever group that may wish to do harm.

That's why the US and Canada's defenses are so tightly woven together. It's mutually beneficial.

There's no point in having other nations' military bases on US soil 'cause the brute strength and military technology/resources already lies with us. They just need diplomatic spaces.

That's probably a reason why Denmark is cool with having more bases in Greenland. It beefs up the general defense of the area and keeps the US' psycho leader(s) satiated like giving a crying infant a pacifier.

They're also probably fine with eventually giving the US access to any minerals on the island 'cause extracting them would be vastly more expensive than they're worth  

They're letting the dog catch the car...but also throwing it a bone so it chills tf out for a bit.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,963]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

I mean. No? Not really? Denmark has something called the Self Government Act 

Greenland could easily vote to become independent should they so desire but, as stated before, they basically rely on Denmark to exist. It's not a self sustaining territory.

Well, that's kind of the trade off isn't it? Those bases benefit the countries they're built in too. 

 

It is indeed difficult for Greenland because they have such a low population. The city where I studied had six times as many inhabitants as Greenland and it wasn't even a metropolis. 

It depends on the country.

Some countries, like Estonia, want military bases from the US; they approach them themselves. Here it is voluntarily.

Other countries are approached by the US...Because US wants something from them.   And then the US almost always gets what it wants. They can get to control the media in these countries, can use corruption, and simply manipulate politicians to their advantage. They always end up saying Yes but I doubt it is voluntarily. 

I'd compare it to a prostitute. A prostitute can be voluntarily a prostitute, but sometimes she is blackmailed into being a prostitute or bought or treatened with violence by her pimp/mack and it is against her will. But when the cops come, she will say it is voluntarily. 

The US occupied island groups during World War II and only granted them independence in exchange for the continued existence of military bases. Like Palau, Micronesia, Greenland, Ryukyu. I consider them colonial-style possessions and think they should have the full right to become independent without being forced to have military bases.

There are countries/territories that aren't threatened by others, but are being used by the US, like Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, to launch attacks on other countries. For example, the US stations bombers in Diego Garcia to attack countries in the Middle East. The population has been forcibly relocated.

Then there are countries/territories that aren't threatened, but they lie in a missile trajectory, like Canada and Greenland. I don't believe that Russia/China would attack Greenland nor Canada - Trump just wants us to believe that to legitimize his plans. Trump also said the same about Diego Garcia - that China will take it if it returns to Mauritius, so it shouldn't.  Trump plays the scarying card.

This means that Greenland and Canada is important for the US in terms of missile defense, but what does that actually mean for the people of Greenland in the event of war? A nuclear missile would be intercepted and detonate over Greenland, landing there as nuclear debris. This wouldn't happen if there weren't interceptor missiles there to begin with. Having these bases also means to be sacrificed first in war. That's why the US wants to have them outside the continental US because the continental US is considered "more precious", they are the first class of the Titanic in their world view. 

On Guam, the local people are unhappy about the military base, divided over it, of course whoever works in military is not.

https://truthout.org/articles/us-military-has-polluted-guam-for-decades-this-year-it-could-get-even-worse/

https://islandtimes.org/the-u-s-sees-pacific-islands-as-tip-of-the-spear-but-locals-fear-becoming-chinas-bullseye/

They know that if war breaks out, they will be attacked by China, not because China wants them, but because they are a military hotspot. Military bases pose risks to innocent, uninvolved nations because they attract the weapons in the event of war. And Guam is a colonial-style occupied island, they cannot vote for US president (not on Guam), yet ironically they are very affected by the presidents decisions, moreso than others. Therefore, I would say that the military bases sometimes benefit the countries; and sometimes they only benefit the US and are more likely to harm the local population.

What I'm trying to say is that the US outsources the dangerous weapons elsewhere and shifts the battlefield - the others on the ground then have to deal with the consequences. 

And I think the US usually acts selfishly toward its own interests and the trade/deal is skewed in favor of US - they pressured Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s in exchange for security guarantees. Similarly, the US prohibits Poland from developing nuclear weapons. If Poland had nuclear weapons, it wouldn't need US help; it could defend itself. The arrangements are always structured to create dependence on the US. The US also banned Taiwan from producing nuclear weapons in 20th century, while Taiwan was in the middle of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23 by Ayesha Erotica

[Ayesha Erotica 1,963]

This is a study that analysed how "problematic Russian involvement" in the Arctic actually decreased in the past years:

https://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/view/6837/11034

"Paradoxically, therefore, Russia’s failed attempt to rapidly seize Ukraine has led to more Arctic predictability. Russia’s failure to win decisively in Eastern Europe has, in relative terms, led to more crisis stability outside Norway. The General Staff’s military blunder and failed coup d’état in Kyiv has become a regional tranquilizer in one of the most sensitive operational areas on Earth."