If we are negotiating a deal, and I ask if you plan to kill me in case we end up not coming to an agreement, and you say that it isn't off the table... That is a threat. You are threatening to kill me if I don't give you what you want. You would just prefer a different way, but if that turns out impossible or too expensive, you are saying that you will in fact try and kill me.
Using your own criteria here, there is a statement of intention: If a deal cannot be reached, the US military will seize the island from the Danish government. When he makes the threat again after bombing Venezuela, this indicates that the US is willing to risk a war to get what they want. There is also a condition for how it might be avoided: "Sell or give us Greenland, on terms that are acceptable to the US". The negotiating leverage is that no sane country wants to fight the American military, and Trump knows this. He is using the threat of invasion as leverage to get a better deal.
Bombadil
1d ago
While I more or less agree with your assessment on Trump and how it is easy to overly rationalize things like this, I still believe it is a valuable discussion, beyond just training my analytical skills. Unlike Russia and China, the USA is not (yet) a dictatorship in which the leader has unchecked power. While Trump's tweets may simply be the erratic work of a narcissist, the overall foreign policy can only happen if supported by the larger state apparatus. Thus, it is clear at this point that the negotiation strategy of applying as much pressure as possible and using every piece of leverage available, including shattering the final vestiges of a world order that has existed since the end of the cold war, is a stance supported by the majority of the US government. If acquiring Greenland is such an important goal to the US that this is now official foreign policy, I think it makes sense to look for a semblance of rationality. Only if no satisfying answer can be found, should we conclude that this behavior is as psychotic as it seems on the surface.
Bombadil
2d ago
Full independence seems more like an ideal that the people like and less like a realistic goal. As I understand it, the current society there literally cannot function without being subsidized by the mainland. There is currently no actionable plan (that I know about) to attain financial independence within the near future.
Bombadil
2d ago
The main issue I have here is that the growing tensions you describe are mainly due to the Trump administration's extremely aggressive negotiation tactics and hostile rhetoric. It was an avoidable problem. Keep treating the EU like allies, and the tensions would not have been there. Hell, even after all this, the European leadership at large still seems to be holding out hope that the US will reverse course, and that everything can just go back to normal.
Bombadil
2d ago
Yes. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that asking to buy Greenland was apparently the first idea the Trump administration had. As if treating Denmark like a loyal ally and negotiating with her to increase the existing force was never an option. This is why I find it most likely that simply owning the landmass (either as a prestige project or to cement the US as a Great Power) is the main goal. Because this is the only thing that explicitly requires ownership.
Bombadil
2d ago
NATO has sent troops into sovereign countries as the result of security council decisions in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations). In addition, the US and EU have enforced sanctions in unison against countries who threatened the established world order, attempting to force them into compliance. This is not nothing, and this era is currently changing in front of our eyes.
You spin a fairly convincing narrative. Together with some of the other commenters here, such as @naraburns and @Totalitarianit i now have a better sense of why the US would want to own the country, rather than simply having a military Prescence there. As well as how ownership would further her military goals. This has certainly been educational.
Bombadil
2d ago
In the hypothethical situation where the Trump administration expends a significant amount of resources to acquire Greenland, something that the US has wanted to do for more than a hundred years, would there even be a mandate to give it back while receiving nothing in return? I imagine the sunk cost would be way too high to justify.
Hell, would Denmark even want it back? It is possible that she is defending Greenland mostly out of a sense of duty and national pride. But not having to subsidize the population might end up being enough of a boon for the mainland to not want that responsibility back years after finally losing it.
Bombadil
2d ago
Militarily speaking, what would acquiring Greenland do to limit the risks you lay out here? They have military bases there, and the other NATO countries also believe in climate change and have an interest in keeping the area under control. Denmark has a tendency to cede American requests for military presence, so why can't the US meet their goals without acquiring Greenland and throwing their alliances into question?
Bombadil
2d ago
Retaliation for the tariffs. Back in 2025 when Trump threatened tariffs left and right, EU leaders stated that it would retaliate as one body if even a single country was targeted. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/22/europe-has-a-trade-bazooka-against-trumps-trade-tariffs.html
Bombadil
2d ago
Yeah. none of this is insurmountable, just very expensive. The question becomes how much the US is willing to pay.
Bombadil
2d ago
This ignores the threat of sanctions resulting in retaliation from the EU, which could cause real economic damage to the US. If it was this easy, the administration would have already done it.
Bombadil
2d ago
I must admit, I had not heard this was an official position. Regardless, an offer to bribe the people runs into three problems:
- The money promised must be significantly more than what Denmark is currently providing, to account for the uncertainty inherent in a regime change.
- The Inuits currently live under pretty favorable conditions in that they have a lot of autonomy. Those conditions might change as the US takes over, which is something the payment would have to account for.
- Low trust in the US. The current administration seems to use every piece of leverage they have to get what they want, and are clearly willing to disregard international law if following it would be contrary to their interests. If they do acquire Greenland, what is going to stop them from going back on any promises they made, once Denmark and the other European countries are no longer in a position to bail the Inuits out?
The new thing here is that the US is no longer trying to work together with the EU and NATO countries. It used to be that these bodies were responsible for enforcing UN laws in the world. Now, the US is putting immense strain on its alliances and trying to go at it alone, going so far as to threaten an ally. As a result, the rules are changing. When the main enforcer of international laws ceases to enforce them, international law no longer exists.
As for Greenland, there is a significant difference between having military bases there and officially being in charge. Right now, the US has no sway over local laws, and Denmark is subsidizing the population. Both of these things would change with a takeover.
USA really, seriously wants to own Greenland.
Trump has made this extremely clear ever since his first presidency when he first offered to buy the island from the Danish government. At the time, the Danes made it very clear that this was not possible. They could not legally sell the island, and if they could, it still would not be for sale. This presidency, he has been probing around, trying to find an effective strategy that can give the administration what they want. He made that clear in 2025 by essentially stating that no tactic is off the table. He has since attempted the following:
- Threaten a military takeover. He did this by stating that military intervention was not considered off the table.This was shut down by European leaders promising to retaliate.
- Convince the locals to declare independence. In reality, independence for Greenland means choosing a new master (thus creating an obvious opportunity for the US), as their current society cannot survive without subsidies from a wealthier nation. However, the administration failed to convince the Inuits. I suspect they might return to this strategy in the future though, if the current one does not work.
- Currently, the administration is attempting to use the situation in Venezuela as leverage. They are showing that the threats of invasion were not empty, using the implication to frighten the relevant parties into submission. Once again, European leaders have, through indicating support for Denmark, threatened retaliation if the US invades. I suspect this will be enough to deter the administration once more. Although if Europe had not been supportive and instead let Denmark stand alone, I do not doubt that America would be planning an invasion right now.
This begs the question though: Why does the US want Greenland so badly? It is a frozen rock in the middle of the ocean, with an entire population living off government subsidies. Why not just let Denmark pay the bill while the states keep their bases? I have some ideas below, ordered from what I think makes the least sense to the most:
- It is a hedge against global warming. As the earth grows hotter, Greenland will become increasingly habitable, making the island much more valuable as other landmasses are swallowed by the ocean.
- Real estate for data centers. The island is cold and remote, with a lot of empty space and rare earths in the ground. To my layman's knowledge though, construction of the necessary infrastructure would be ludicrously expensive, even though the land itself might be cheap. Still, I would not put it past the likes of Elon Musk to try something like this anyway.
- To secure the North Atlantic against military threats. This seems like the official reason, but I don't really buy it. America already has military bases on Greenland, and I do not see why the military could not simply send more equipment and personnel there if the government wanted a larger presence. No official ownership necessary. If this is wrong, then I invite any other commenter to correct me.
- To control the rare earths. Rare earths are a priority of the Trump administration, and even though extracting them is supposedly ridiculously expensive, the mere possibility of another country (China) gaining access to them might be enough to warrant official occupation. This way, the US government, not the Inuits, would be in control of who is allowed to mine there.
- It is in the American "Sphere of Influence". It is possible that the world order is turning towards one in which Great Powers (USA, Russia, China, and maybe the EU) hold influence over the smaller countries in their vicinity. The smaller countries remain sovereign and independent as long as they operate in the interest of their great power. In this scenario, the USA views all of the Americas as being under her sphere of influence, including Canada and Greenland. These countries will either bow to their leader or suffer her wrath.
- The purpose is to secure Trump's (and more broadly, the Republican's) legacy as president. Trump clearly cares a lot about his image, with the most recent example being how hard he has tried to win the Nobel Peace price. Successfully expanding the nation's territory with the world's largest island would go down in the history books, cementing this administration as potentially the greatest one since world war 2.
Bombadil
5d ago
This is also partly a communication issue, no? The woman either failed to communicate what she wants from the man, or the man did not listen or understand when she did so.
Had the man not watched porn but still been abstaining from sex for decades, he would also not know how to satisfy a woman. So you get the same experience of the woman leaving unsatisfied. The main difference would be that the abstainer probably has fewer preconceptions, so maybe he will be more careful. But that does not directly correlate with being better at sex.
I grew up being taught the ideals of a rules-based world where the US stood for international law based on western values. Besides, conservatives tend to use the sovereignty of nations as an argument against globalism. I assumed the argument against foreign aid programs was one of sovereignty. Each country is responsible for their own people. Perhaps most importantly, I was under the impression that being anti-war was a really important part of Trump's campaign. I genuinely believed that was a big reason for people to vote for him.
It seems my desire to be charitable may have led me to wrong conclusions, which have now been corrected. At least until further evidence presents itself.
Bombadil
7d ago
America has bombed another sovereign nation. This is literally starting a war with a country that was not a military threat to the US, and (at least to my knowledge) were not at all at risk of going to war themselves. Even if it turns out to be short-lived, this starts a war that would have not otherwise occurred. The literal opposite of peace. I would suggest that people who support this are not anti-war at all. They are anti-losing, anti-spending-lots-of-money-on-prolonged-conflicts, pro-US-can-do-whatever-it-wants, and they clearly do not care about the sovereignty of other countries.
You argue that this intervention was needed but do not explain why. Until I gain a satisfying explanation of why this attack was necessary and worthwhile, I will be forced to believe in the above.
I am curious: Trump campaigned on being anti-war, and has attempted to brand himself as a peacemaker this past year. Will starting a war be what drives his supporters away from him? Or will this be considered largely justified?
I could see a world where it is spun as being the best way to spend American resources in the interest of the people, in some roundabout way furthering "America First". But would the voters really buy that?
Bombadil
16d ago
So master morality in the end optimizes for the things you own, which means celebrating actions that we consider immoral. Because that is often the fastest way to own as much stuff as possible. Fair enough.
What I really want is not to bring that back then; What you describe seems like society would be regressing by centuries. Instead, I want to hold people and institutions to some kind of standard. Celebrate the people who put in effort, look down on those who do not. Surely that much is possible. In that case, what is needed is for society to agree on a new moral system. One that incentivizes effort and celebrates success and beauty, while still punishing those who gain wealth by trampling others.
Bombadil
17d ago
I think it depends in how strict we are with our definitions of master morality. If saving children is considered neutral, having possessions is virtuous, and losing possessions means losing virtue then yeah, you are right. But consider another perspective: You will not save every child on earth, but you will save every kid in your local community. This way you are perhaps still losing a lot of possessions. Your nice suit, the money you had in your wallet when jumping into the pond, maybe you invest in people to watch the shores and so on. But in return, you become a pillar of the community. Someone that people look up to because you embody a kind of intrinsic worth. Meanwhile, your community is enriched by the presence of young people which over time can make you more virtuous. They might buy stuff from you and make you richer. You might compete with them and win.
Same goes for the virtuous warlord. From one perspective, the virtue comes from your conquests through slaughter. From another, the virtue is in your ability to best others. In that case, the virtue is there whether you choose to fight or not. If there is no just cause for a war, then you can surely use your abilities in different ways that benefit your people and still shows how virtuous you are in that sense.
Bombadil
29d ago
The effectiveness of agree-and-amplify is context dependent though. It makes sense in dating because the two of you are not discussing the merits of whatever insult the woman throws at you. You are either showing how you handle a curveball, or you are simply both joking around and having fun by making absurd statements.
I would argue it makes a lot less sense when one party is entirely serious about the insult. If the girl genuinely believes that big truck = small dick, agreeing and amplifying will just make her think she is correct.
A debate setting is serious, and it is expected that both parties argue in good faith. In that situation, agree and amplify will either convince the viewers that the accusations are correct or show them that you do not care about the rules of the debate. If one party defects this way, then the intellectual value is pretty much lost. From my perspective, either Nick Fuentes is an actual racist or he is so obtuse that I cannot know what his views are, because at any point he might be joking.
So the only thing he manages to do is show of his authority or his frame, by showing the viewers that he is composed even when under pressure while managing to throw off the frame of his opponent. I admit this is a good goal to have in a debate, but it doesn't do much for me personally when he otherwise comes off as either racist or untrustworthy.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I think a lot of people were taught growing up that society is run by a set of rules and if you follow those, if you are a good person in that sense, then you will be rewarded and life will work out. The realization that the rules are not what you were taught, if any hard rules at all even exist, is crushing. Especially if you believe that Bonnie Blue is not contributing much to society at all, even compared to the warehouse worker.
Bombadil
1mo ago
There must be other reasons. I sincerely doubt the average man is that paranoid about false accusations. Most people assume that tragedies always happen to other people, not themselves and I don't see why this should be different for accusations of pedophilia.
Internet commenters tend to be a lot more anxious than ordinary people and thus you see the false accusation points a lot online. But "internet commenters" is not exactly the group I would imagine as volunteering to quite literally touch grass regardless. So the answer should probably be found elsewhere.
Typo edited. That one is fairly important for the overall message.
More options
Context Copy link