Greenland proposal Trump endorsed respects Denmark’s sovereignty: sources

Posted by nicknameSerialNumber

11 Comments

  1. nicknameSerialNumber on

    Submission statement: this is relevant to international relations and NATO, and seems to contradict NYT reporting.

  2. nicknameSerialNumber on

    !ping EU

    Seems to contradict NYT reporting.

    Link for the global poor: https://archive.is/XuxR4

    >Behind the scenes: Two sources with knowledge of Rutte’s proposal said it doesn’t include the transfer of overall sovereignty over Greenland from Denmark to the United States.
    The plan includes updating the 1951 “Greenland Defense Agreement” between the U.S. and Denmark, which allowed the U.S. to build military bases in the island and establish “defense areas” if NATO believed it necessary.
    It also includes sections on increasing security in Greenland and NATO activity in the Arctic, as well as additional work on raw materials, the sources said.
    The proposal also includes language on positioning “Golden Dome” in Greenland and on countering “malign outside influence” by Russia and China.
    What they’re saying: “If this deal goes through, and President Trump is very hopeful it will, the U.S. will be achieving all of its strategic goals with respect to Greenland, at very little cost, forever.”
    “President Trump is proving once again he’s the Dealmaker in Chief. As details are finalized by all parties involved, they will be released accordingly,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios.
    Between the lines: The ideas raised by Rutte echo the Danish proposal that has long been on the table: Denmark retains sovereignty, but the U.S. is able to increase its military presence.

  3. IndividualAnalyst782 on

    I’m not even going to pretend to understand what’s going on, I just hope Trump moves on to something else.

  4. ForWhomTheAltTrolls on

    Can someone PLEASE clarify what is going on I am absolutely itching to make a trite WWII analogy and I need to know who is who

  5. Guys, maybe let’s not jump to conclusions over breaking news based on rumors about concepts of a framework for a deal?

Leave A Reply