> So with the re-newed interest and a willigness to seriously mess up the NATO alliance - what does the US want in Greenland this time around?

This assumes the US has a plan. It's a bold assumption.

▲

piloto_ciego 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think (perhaps naively) that we do have a plan? Regardless, I have been trying to tell people in my life that the "really truly scary outcome" is not "what if everything falls apart" but "what if this works?"

I was thinking about this last night. I think the goal is "spheres of influence and Monroe doctrine stuff" and troublingly i think we might end up with more annexations in the next little bit.

▲

surgical_fire 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If the US wanted to have more military control in Denmark, it wouldn't need this sort of ridiculous dance and a new deal.

It always could put military bases in Greenland. NATO was a thing, and Denmark never really bothered itself much with US military bases there. Greenland was not annexed by the US.

This is pretty much the same shit with the Iran war, the US now is scrambling to convince Iran to open the strait of Hormuz, just to get things in the same state they were before the war started.

▲

piloto_ciego 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> It always put military basses in Greenland

I don't think this is unilaterally true, from the first glance at this, it appears to be significantly more capability...

▲

piva00 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If the USA kept the status quo of being an ally it would never be a problem. It could only be a problem if the USA was hostile so the Danes could block additional bases (which had never happened, the USA built multiple bases in Greenland during the Cold War).

Leaving only one reason for wanting to rip apart the old agreement: in case the USA wasn't an ally anymore.

	▲	piloto_ciego 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, I ain't saying you're wrong. I don't like it, but the idea of non-transactional international relations is probably over...