Greenland Vs NATO

MNW67 · 2026-01-22T17:11:36+0000

motorbiking said:
I think he'd know the details.

Of course, Rutte knows the details. But he's not going to share them on live TV. Basically, he is just humouring the sad old codger. Elsewhere on Sky News, Mark Stone has the real story:

Of course, Team Trump will spin this as another blinding example of the president's "art of the deal" playing out; like they achieved something.

But be in no doubt, that's nonsense. It's half show, half ineptitude, which is deeply damaging to the trans-Atlantic partnership. America under Trump is less reliable by the day. And the damage is lasting.

There is no "framework of a deal". Not yet.

Donald Trump may claim there is, but that's only because he needed a way to back down from his threats when he realised that he wasn't going to be able to own Greenland.

"Is this just Trump's off-ramp? No actual framework of a deal yet?" I asked one diplomat at the heart of it all. The response: "Exactly."

The penny had dropped in his head, it seems. He realised his Greenland ownership plans were more than just unpopular at home (among his own side too). They were seen as self-defeating, undeliverable and frankly mad.

So where next? Both sides will look for a middle ground that doesn't hand over Greenland to America. There is plenty of space for ideas and creative thinking - there always was if only the American president was willing to listen.

The reality behind Trump's Greenland 'deal'

Donald Trump's team will act like he has achieved something with an apparent "framework of a deal" on Greenland. But be in no doubt, that's nonsense - and the US president has inflicted serious damage to the trans-Atlantic alliance.

news.sky.com

motorbiking · 2026-01-22T17:16:53+0000

motorbiking · 2026-01-22T17:21:32+0000

noseall said:
And has ended up with pretty much the same as he had before

only cheaper and better `

MNW67 · 2026-01-22T17:55:11+0000

motorbiking said:
the UK pays 35bn to Mauritius who don't even have an army to rent back islands that we previously bought and owned anyway.

What does Trump's intervention mean for the Chagos deal. The UK has said previously that it won't go ahead without Trump's support. There is an article in the Telegraph giving more details of how Trump came to change his mind. Apparently, a group of former generals wrote to him last week. It makes you wonder why they didn't do that a year ago when the deal was being approved by Trump:

Trump warned by generals that Chagos deal would weaken US

Diego Garcia airbase would be ‘inherently less secure’ under Britain’s pact with Mauritius, defence chiefs said

web.archive.org

motorbiking · 2026-01-22T18:06:19+0000

This could be Starmer's equivalent of Brown's Gold sell off.

Maldives have claimed we have no right to give it to Mauritius. Geographically, they have a point.

Its signed but not ratified.

To. be fair to Starmer, he feared a "legally" binding court order would go against the UK, giving us no position to negotiate terms for the base. I can't imagine a worse deal than the one he struck. But the world has rather moved on since then and big countries tend to get away with taking land from small countries.

In the current climate we could have simply said "finders keepers" or rather, we bought it for £3m

Its a terribly embarrassing deal, and Starmer knows it.

MNW67 · 2026-01-22T18:14:51+0000

motorbiking said:
This could be Starmer's equivalent of Brown's Gold sell off.

Maldives have claimed we have no right to give it to Mauritius. Geographically, they have a point.

Its signed but not ratified.

To. be fair to Starmer, he feared a "legally" binding court order would go against the UK, giving us no position to negotiate terms for the base. I can't imagine a worse deal than the one he struck. But the world has rather moved on since then and big countries tend to get away with taking land from small countries.

In the current climate we could have simply said "finders keepers" or rather, we bought it for £3m

Its a terribly embarrassing deal, and Starmer knows it.

I was asking whether it will still be ratified if Trump has changed his mind. The UK said previously it would only go ahead with Trump's approval. Is Trump really against it, or was he just having a hissy fit. We need clarity from the old duffer.

ellal · 2026-01-22T18:18:24+0000

motorbiking said:
This could be Starmer's equivalent of Brown's Gold sell off.

Really scrapping the barrel, but then expected...

motorbiking said:
Maldives have claimed we have no right to give it to Mauritius. Geographically, they have a point.

Geographically neither the UK or the US have any right to be on the islands

And equally the same geographically as the Falklands/Las Malvinas that the UK government was negotiating to sell to/lease back from Argentina

morqthana · 2026-01-22T18:28:00+0000

MNW67 said:
The UK has said previously that it won't go ahead without Trump's support.

It has to do with Trump how, exactly?

motorbiking · 2026-01-22T18:32:08+0000

MNW67 said:
I was asking whether it will still be ratified if Trump has changed his mind. The UK said previously it would only go ahead with Trump's approval. Is Trump really against it, or was he just having a hissy fit. We need clarity from the old duffer.

motorbiking said:
Its signed but not ratified.

Munroast · 2026-01-22T18:33:09+0000

why don't we just give it to the yanks ? could we ?

transam · 2026-01-22T18:33:54+0000

Tell them chagos islanders to go and do one imo
Diago Garcia is an important military base

motorbiking · 2026-01-22T18:36:34+0000

ellal said:
Really scrapping the barrel, but then expected...

Geographically neither the UK or the US have any right to be on the islands

And equally the same geographically as the Falklands/Las Malvinas that the UK government was negotiating to sell to/lease back from Argentina

and based on that nonsense logic,
the Chanel islands belong to the French
French Polynesia belongs to NZ
The canaries are African and
Denmark has no claim to Greenland.

motorbiking · 2026-01-22T18:37:11+0000

transam said:
Tell them chagos islanders to go and do one imo
Diago Garcia is an important military base

nobody is giving them their home back either way.

MNW67 · 2026-01-22T18:38:43+0000

motorbiking said:
Its signed but not ratified.

I know. I have already mentioned that several times over the past few days.

My question is whether we will still go ahead with ratification if Trump has changed his mind. The UK has said previously that it would only go ahead with Trump's approval. Is Trump really against it, or was he just having a hissy fit. We need clarity from the old duffer. If he objects, I think that would be a neat way out. Basically, pass the buck to Trump.

MNW67 · 2026-01-22T18:41:05+0000

morqthana said:
It has to do with Trump how, exactly?

The only reason we held on to the Chagos Islands in the first place was because the US asked us to, so that they could build a base. The Diego Garcia installation is one of their most important strategic assets. That is why the government have said previously that they would not go ahead without Trump's approval.

Greenland Vs NATO

Similar threads