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.

>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.

> 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.