you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago

No, that's quite a stretch to call mineral exploitation a military purpose. It would at most be a strategic independence from other sources of minerals like China.

The other parts "permanent access" with "no approval needed" was part of the 1951 agreement. While I don't know the specifics on the independence of Greenland and what the old agreement said, I think Greenland didn't have the influence back then and it wasn't a matter to be discussed, so it might have been void in that case. But if Greenland goes independent they're basically up for grabs and Trump would be first in line.

  • source
  • parent