The defence deal signed at the UN General Assembly also re-affirms Denmark's sovereignty over its semi-autonomous Arctic territory.
  • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    18 hours ago

    And yet, no invasion, but rather a formal acknowledgement of the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark.

    At least so far. I guess we’ll see if it holds.

    • agent_nycto@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      17 hours ago

      Ah yes, Donald Trump and the US government, both historically known for not violating agreements and keeping to boundaries.

      • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        17 hours ago

        Indeed. The main victory is less the document and more the fact that there’s been no invasion, and that there likely won’t be any further threats of invasion for a while, leaving the Inuit and Denmark to pursue real political issues instead of preparing a defense.

        • agent_nycto@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          16 hours ago

          installs military base totally not an invasion guys don’t worry.

          If anything these people now have to make more of a defense because the people who threatened to invade them are building military bases on their land.

          • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            12 hours ago

            I would agree in an absence of historical and military context.

            But they

            • already had a serious military base outnumbering the Danish troops on the island (since the fifties),
            • could invade the island with immense military superiority more or less equally easy with one, three or no bases
            • build and use the current base (and by all indications future bases) to cover the Arctic, not to project power against Denmark and the Inuit.

            Yes, if this was a Civ game, your logic might apply. But the real situation is more nuanced.

            • Danquebec@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              8 hours ago

              Immense military superiority is kinda moot if only 1% of the ships can cross the ice, most of the helicopters fail, and most of the soldiers get frostbite.

              I’mn not saying that it would be easy for Denmark and allies, but I’m not sure it would be easy for the US either.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          11·
          15 hours ago

          and that there likely won’t be any further threats of invasion for a while

          And why would you ever think that? We’re installing military bases there, dude. The entire point is future threats of invasion.

          • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            12 hours ago

            We’re installing military bases there, dude.

            The US already has a base and dominant military presence on the island. They have been allowed to establish new bases since 1951. Their military presence since WW2 has clearly not been about preparing an invasion.

            If the reason to invade was to build more military bases to cover the Arctic, they now have that with no reason to invade.

            If there is another reason to invade, the difference between

            • a vastly superior military with one base, the permission to build more, and an intention to invade
            • a vastly superior military with three bases, the permission to build more, and an intention to invade

            is not that great.

            Finally, if the point of the bases is to make an invasion easier, the invasion likely won’t happen until the bases are finished, giving peace and possibly a regime change in the meantime.