this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
141 points (98.6% liked)

World News

58520 readers
1786 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/world/p/1191953/us-to-build-two-military-bases-in-greenland-under-new-deal-with-denmark

The defence deal signed at the UN General Assembly also re-affirms Denmark's sovereignty over its semi-autonomous Arctic territory.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 119 points 3 weeks ago (28 children)

I'm no military strategist, but normally if a country threatens to take over your territory you don't let them build military bases there.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 80 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

There is basically nothing new in that agreement, USA always had the option to have more bases in Greenland, and they used to have that during the cold war. It is USA themselves that have limited the number of bases they wanted to have there.
Trump just think he made some kind of deal, when in reality that deal has been there for more than half a century.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, but with Trump there never really is a "deal", because at some point in the future he'll just decide he wants something else. See, e.g., NAFTA. In this case, he'll build up the bases and then declare Greenland part of the U.S.. I'd like to believe that the midterm elections will shift the balance of power, and Trump will face a reckoning, but in reality I think he'll do something like declare martial law and fuck the elections. He's already ordered republicans to "cheat like hell". It's going to be an interesting year end.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Absolutely Trump is not to be trusted, but I think this was not so much about the deal as it was to appease Trump so he will focus elsewhere.

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There's also a clause that says they can only be there if USA is in NATO.

Which ties them.to NATO for the foreseeable.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh yeah I'm sure we'll promptly vacate these military bases if/when we leave NATO.

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Probably not but it ties you to NATO for literally nothing The US had th option to build these bases already.

You just got sold ice in Greenland

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

One, that's unfortunate

Two, if the US breaks off NATO, it's not like anyone should expect whoever is there at the time to say "oh okay never mind" and then sit up and leave.

They weren't there before for whatever reason, and now that they have a foot in, they're just gonna keep pushing.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Technically he lost ground, we had very very wide range on the number and location of us bases and now we're limited to two without renegotiation.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

It's like when you distract a crying baby by shaking the rattle that's already in their hand.

[–] Mihies@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago

Besides the Orange signature being worthless, they could deal for less enemy's presence, not more.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah, this is... Trumps playbook again and again.

Make up fake controversial bullshit, get massive headlines, never actually follow through with bullshit, and then just do what we were gonna do already and call it a 'victory'. But nothing was ever really done, it was all a storm in a teacup and legally or operationally nothing really changed.

All his 'wins' are just maintaining the status quo, and the media and the public eat it up.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't really like it. Complains about the cost of defending a Europe he hates. Spends/Builds bases in missile/aircraft range to be closer to attack Europe but defended by isolation and no armies nearby.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Trump is insane and now he is demented too. we have reached a stage where it's mostly about distraction and hoping he doesn't do anything too crazy like attacking Iran.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah I was always surprised they didn't just take over this way to begin with.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

These bases won't be operational for years, by which time we'll likely be rational again.

And with the US carrier strategy, this doesn't really make attacking Greenland any easier or more likely.

They're not building from scratch, but one is abandoned and one was only used by dog sledders...

The current US government isn't exactly competent, this is not a short term threat.

It also says that "no state that is not a member of Nato shall be allowed to establish its own manned or unmanned military installations in Greenland nor shall they be allowed a persistent presence of military forces in Greenland".

And locks us into NATO in the meantime, which is a short term threat

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

by which time we'll likely be rational again.

Really, America is going to have complete generational turnover of its electorate in just a couple of years?

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

Well if America doesn't, I don't think we'll still be calling it "America" anymore in a couple of years.

[–] Sumocat@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yep, nothing new about those bases, just two money pits in the middle of nowhere. If they end up being more than a rough airfield and a dozen marines in a tent, it will be shocking. And by “it” I mean the price tag.

The new pact says the US "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defence Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig" […] Narsarsuaq is a former civilian airport and World War Two base. […] The Mestersvig outpost is remote, far less developed, and used by a Danish naval dog sled unit.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago

My main concern is that Trump seems to have learned that "military facility" is his magic "I can do what I want" card. The ballroom has a bunker under it so it's a matter of national security to build it. His triumphal arch is going to be a sniper nest and drone launcher (can't make this stuff up) so it's a matter of national security.

So let's see if those "military bases" come with oil wells or strip mines as an integral part of their design.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

These bases won't be operational for years, by which time we'll likely be rational again.

You think? I decided I won't go to Fascistan ever again in my lifetime, about 10 years ago. Neither for missions nor for holidays. Lots of bridges are burnt and it will take more than a lifetime to rebuild trust. By which time Fascistan and Putistan and Europe will likely be irrelevant because China and India etc...

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

I hope we will be rational again in a couple years. It took trials and decades of divided Germany to mostly fix the scourge of Nazism. We might have to ban all MAGA speech and symbols, which would be an interesting Constitutional challenge.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)