site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   32743 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

You really don't need to overthink it. Annexing territory is based. It's the kind of thing a STRONG MAN character would do on TV. It's swinging your dick around. It makes the right people excited and the right people angry. And it's not so implausible that, like annexing Canada, it just reads as a joke whenever you say it. Donald Trump is the chief executive of the executive branch and the commander in chief of the military, he's the one making the decision to pursue this, and this just is how he thinks (alternate hypotheses fail to explain his behavior, eg the events around Liberation Day). He's the first Simulacra Level 4 President.

And it's not like there's not strategic logic to the US acquiring Greenland. It should've already happened (gwern link). All else equal, more land = more power. The US's past land purchases seem like good ideas in retrospect. You would prefer to directly control land rather than just lease military bases. I would prefer the US to control greenland (and canada) than not. Even if only to make travel simpler. This is part of why the idea's plausible enough for Trump to push this hard for it, it's not by itself stupid (though the way he's been pursuing it is) but it's not, I think, really why he wants it.

Another thought:

Greenland is weird because it is very much a noncentral example of a country. It has a population density of just 0.028/km^2. (For comparison, Montana is 3/km^2, even Alaska is 0.5/km^2. A reasonably densely settled European state (e.g. Belgium) gets to ~400/km^2.)

It is halfway between a country and SpaceX placing a hundred colonists on the Moon who then incorporate as a state with all of the Moon as their territory.

In Europe, every square meter of usable land was fought over hundreds of times, most borders drawn in blood. With Greenland, it seems that most of the territorial claim is more "That icy wasteland which can not sustain human life? Well, nobody is contesting it, so I guess it is ours."

So if the US or China would build a time machine and establish undiscovered colonies in Greenland in 1900, they could likely get Denmark to cede a part of Greenland to them, because most sane people do not want to die for some icy wasteland far from their home country, and even the small population of Greenland will probably feel little patriotic urge to die to protect their inhospitable hinterlands.

That being said, "the international rule-based order results in a tiny population of some inhospitable part of the earth nobody cared enough for to even contest before the IRBO came into effect becoming filthy rich" is hardly without precedent. Some thinly populated areas in the Middle East made it big thanks to fossil fuels. Denmark, the US, Canada and Russia getting to keep their mostly unpopulated territories in the arctic seems like a small price to pay for keeping the IRBO.

Not that from a geographical point of view, the US has any good claim to Greenland in the first place. Ireland claiming Northern Ireland, Canada claiming Alaska, Italy claiming the Vatican, even Putin claiming Ukraine are all more plausible from geography.

Speaking at the White House, Trump said, “I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way”

Good that he says it so bluntly, US is a serious threat to Europe, so this is healthy for Europeans. Take the hard way, retire NATO, build something with European scope, actually credible.

Talking points ossified - locals want independence, if locals take some pitiful sum each then that is that, legitimate transfer, simple business, it's weird to take it personally. I'm only surprised by how much americans seem to buy into the resentful narrative about Europe (ripping us off, not pulling their weight, not showing due deference and gratitude). I used to think this is just retarded Trump noises, rhetorical weapon, but no, americans across the spectrum are genuinely highly receptive.

I'm only surprised by how much americans seem to buy into the resentful narrative about Europe

Europe can be perceived by Americans at the geopolitical level as being kind of worthless and full of unwarranted self-importance, a demilitarized military ally that hasn't done anything of note in eighty years except build a nice welfare system and import a billion Muslims to devour it, but still thinks it's fit to lecture us on literally everything.

can be perceived

Can is a low bar. Should, per your list? No. Hysterics like "demilitarized", "worthless" should be tempered somewhat by shame. The ongoing rugpull, but also: US leadership, US influence, a few decades, ruin apparently. "Not done anything of note in eighty years", but presumably US did; technological progress is notable, US and European efforts were intertwined, but zero merit for us, a little hard to swallow.

In general it is quite funny how quick americans are to remind Europeans who is the core, and who is the periphery, but you also have this insane expectation that we field militaries that can secure your empire. We were plenty militarized for Russia (before war changed, anyhow), had a better deal than having to field something that can deter the US (mistake), we have no other threats.

this insane expectation that we field militaries that can secure your empire.

Look if you're too good to have a bunch of guys with guns who are equipped to go places and shoot people, the amount of fuck anyone outside your borders has to give about your opinion on anything is by necessity decreased.

Honestly it's absurd, with its tech base and economy the EU should be absolutely bullying a shitheel hasbeen like Russia on the world stage. Those guys should be terrified to put a foot wrong lest the EU get in their shit, with its better technology and ten times greater GDP right there on the continent with them.

Instead all it's done in the last thirty years is regulate its way to being a tech backwater while letting its militaries rot so it could spend the money making sure Akhmed and his whole family get to stay in a nice hotel, etc. etc.

Is that even wrong?

1. Cynical take.

I think we need to understand that leaders have biases which lead to not entirely rational decisions, and strongmen have little checks on their biases, enabling extreme (not in the normative sense but in the sense of sheer disruptive change) behavior. One can cook up a theory as to why the acquisition of Greenland is actually super important and worth fracturing NATO (or why the costs are overstated). Likely all your bullet points contribute. But so one can rationalize the Russian invasion of Ukraine (which seemed so dumb and negative-EV to me at the time I did not even consider it might happen) or Xi's Zero COVID. It's all not so complex. Putin is an arrogant murderous revanchist with poor awareness of Russia's real capabilities. Xi is a technocratic control freak with a can-do attitude who loves ham-fisted campaign-style governance. Trump is a petty upjumped merchant, a grabby narcissist who feels like a God when he takes something from someone. Money, prestige, land. He got hard for Ukrainian «rare earths», remember? (It was probably a translation error about «black soil» that Ukrainians with their agricultural legacy are so proud of, they don't have appreciable deposits and anyway rare earths are not rare in the Western bloc, the problem is overwhelmingly about refining infrastructure, IP and training). And he apparently believes Venezuelan oil is some goldmine (it's not). He projects this sensibility, too – he might really fear losing Greenland to non-NATO forces, but Russia and China have minimal naval force projection and very little interest in Greenland, relatively speaking, and negligible presence there at the time. Of course China would invest into development, they do that everywhere, but Denmark is a good and loyal ally. Below, @naraburns cites a Jan 8 2026 (wow things move fast) analysis from CSIS: “Already, Chinese rare earth company Shenghe Resources is the largest shareholder in the Kvanefjeld mine, with 12.5 percent ownership. Shenghe signed an MOU in 2018 to lead the processing and marketing of materials extracted from the site.”

OK, let's see the source on this largest shareholder. The link is to 2019 piece from NPR: “Access to Greenland's resources could help break U.S. dependency on China for rare earths. But already a Chinese state-owned company has more than a 12% stake in the Kvanefjeld deposit. Kvanefjeld is owned by Greenland Minerals, an Australian company, and China's Shenghe Resources is its largest shareholder and strategic partner.”

https://ggg.gl/partner/ is defunct, because the name was changed in 2022:

Energy Transition Minerals Ltd (formerly Greenland Minerals Limited,[1] ASX Code: ETM) is an ASX-listed company focused on the exploration, development and financing of minerals, and rare earths. The company’s current projects include the Kvanefjeld, located in Greenland, Villasrubias, located in Spain, and two Lithium projects located in the James Bay region in Canada.

OCJ investments Pty Ltd in Australia hold a 17% share of the company, while a Chinese company, Shenghe Resources holds a 7% share. The rest of the shares are held by other institutions and private investors.[13]

I don't know how much Shenghe Resources held in GGG. Currently ETM Ltd. has two Chinese non-executive directors, of which one seems to represent Shenghe.

That's just a sudden discovery of just how low-quality this war propaganda has gotten in validating Trumpian urgent framing. That's CSIS, not a journalist on Fox or a random poster who's doing ChatGPT+search to validate a take. Americans think themselves free from propaganda but it's a fish and water situation.

You don't threaten your allies (and no Dean, this is absolutely a threat, given the context of their refusal) over something as trivial as “a Chinese company has a 7% stake in one of your mines, which product you can't refine without China because the West has skill issues anyway”. It's not a rational move under any normal calculus. Trump can get anything the US needs from Denmark and Greenland, including militarization and total exclusion of Russian/Chinese activity, without the transfer of sovereignty over the land.

So either it's irrational or the calculus is not “normal”.

2. More cynical take.

…But if I were to entertain the hypothesis of Trump expressing the will of some rational decisionmaker – under which circumstances is total sovereign control actually necessary? I think it's a regime where the US competes with Denmark for resources to be exploited, and thus wants 100% of them, and Denmark would feel threatened and block that if it were in a position to do so. It's not a defensive measure but preparation for a world where raw commodities matter more than any alliance, where

2 weeks ago I said:

[…] Both nations are large, decently situated and can, in theory, produce all goods in prolific abundance within their own borders more economically than imports would be; and China is entitled to a larger and more diverse internal market on account of population size. There are some hard natural endowments – Australia has more accessible mineral wealth, Atacama desert has excellent solar resource, I don't know – but commodities are cheap. Maybe they'll become less cheap? What remains scarce after labor and R&D are commodified? Land? Copper? Wombs? We need to think of how the world would operate when major nations are capable of industrial autarky, because modulo some Butlerian Jihad we will have to deal with it anyway.

In the limit of this trajectory, [China] will only need to export enough to cover the raw commodities imports necessary for their internal economic activity. That's not a lot, in dollar terms. The more interesting question is what else we all will be trading in 2038.

I believe that's the proper framework to rationalize Trumpian land grab ambitions and indifference to allies.

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.

If Trump takes Greenland, the US loses Europe, and most of their allies.

I don't think that we would get a full-on war of loyalist NATO vs US. In the end, the US has the military capabilities to conquer Greenland. I would welcome it if my government dropped a few billions on whatever people might be willing to fight the US in the arctic, though, just as I am fine with my government dropping billions on Ukraine. Paying to hurt defectors is the least we can do to strengthen the rule-based order.

But at the end of the day, Greenland is 578 times less populous than Ukraine. Eventually the US would win.

But for the rest of NATO (Europe, but also Canada), that would radically change our strategic situation. Not only could we no longer depend on the US to defend us from other large powers, we would have to treat the US as one of the conquering hostile powers itself. Step one would be to politely ask US troops to leave Europe. Step two would be to get our retaliatory capacity up to speed. This means building a lot of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, so we can credibly threaten to turn most US cities into rubble.

We probably would not want a defensive alliance with Canada or Mexico (because the risk for Canada to become the next target of Vance's territorial ambitions in 2028 is obviously higher than for Belgium), but should probably cooperate with them in developing ICBMs. Colombia also looks like a country which might be interested in buying a few nukes, personally I would take their dollar bills despite the powder sticking to them.

For the Major Non-NATO Allies (e.g. Australia, Japan, South Korea), their strategic landscape would likewise change: if Trump will attack NATO countries, he will certainly also be willing to take a slice of Australia by force. Probably all of these would suddenly become very interested in nuclear weapons programs. (The MNNA which will have to do the least updating of their strategic picture is Colombia, as the US is already the prime military threat for them. In general, in South America and Muslim countries, the US does not have the same reputation as a steadfast ally as they do in European-origin countries.)

I can not say I would like such a development over the status quo. The pax americana was a win-win-win for the US, its western allies and the world. The US became the leader of the free world. Western allies like the Netherlands gained great security guarantees. The world got some reprieve from the security dilemma as western allies were not incentivised to build their own ICBMs to keep each other in check.

Even in this unlikely set of circumstances I think Europe just pays France to build an extra nuke sub that'll be done twenty years from now, peddles one buttcheek to China in order to feel reasonably secure playing both sides of the divide, and then continues sliding merrily into irrelevance. Whatever bearded mullahs are running Europe by the time I die won't care about any of this anyway.

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.

This just bugs my 'words have meaning' nerve.

In its most general form, a threat is a an indication of intention- verbal or non-verbal- to inflict harm of someone. Often this comes with a conditional, but not always.

When Trump said he was 'going to bomb the shit out of [ISIS],' that was a threat. It wasn't conditional, but it was very much an indication of an intention soon followed.

When Trump said that threats with North Korea would be met with 'fire and fury,' that was a threat. It was vauge on what said fire and fury entailed, and allowed people to project a nuclear dynamic, but it was a threat with a condition (of North Korea threats continuing).

When earlier today Trump said he called off a second wave of attacks on Venezuela because it released a large number of political prisoners, that is a threat. The indication to attack was conditional on a condition no longer present, i.e. Venezuelan behavior, but the threat is on the condition of if that cooperation changes.

'Military intervention is not off the table' is not a statement of intention. It does not indicate an intent to inflict harm. It does not set a condition for which it might be avoided. It does not even set a condition for it to be enacted. It's a non-denial, but a non-denial is not an affirmation. It is, at most, the implication of the possibility of a threat... which has no negotiating leverage or coercive value if you simply choose another implication to interpret, at which point the speaker either has to up the ante by making a more explicit threat, or not sustain the implicit threat.

I tend to loath macho posturing comparisons, but even if you want to act as if that's a threat, it is an incredibly weak threat by the standards of Trump- who is not exactly adverse to explicit threats of military attacks- and it makes the sort of people who treat it as a strong threat seem even weaker in turn.

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.

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.

To interject just here- if you think I took a position that it was not a threat, you misunderstood the point of the post you are responding to. My position is not that it can't be a threat. My position, made more explicit and encompassing elaboration below, is that it is not a direct threat, that treating it as a threat is a choice of the recipient, and that even if you want to take that position then it is a weak threat.

Returning to the para in full-

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.

It is precisely because you accept the paradigm that you are negotiating a deal that the indirect threat is weak and safe to disregard as a threat, and that treating it as a direct statement of intent is increasing the risk (and costs) for your negotiations here and in the future.

All negotiations deal with implicit and explicit threats. The very possibility of walking away from a negotiation is a form of threat, since it indicates a consequence of denying the opponent what they want (the subject of negotiation) at a cost the opponent prefers (the cost of a negotiated solution, as opposed to the costs of the baseline alternative to a negotiated agreement, i.e. BATNA). This is typically on the low end of the threat spectrum, but it is none the less a form of threat available to both parties.

At the same time, (competent) negotiations entail knowing when and how to deal with, deflect, or dismiss threats based on their credibility. Threats, after all, can be very cheap if they are only words. An insincere threat, one made without an intent to carry out, is still quite valuable if it drives the opponent to make a [concession] to make it go away. Getting something potentially valuable, but for practically free, is an incredible incentive, especially in repeat-game dynamics where the knowledge of willingness to make a concession informs further [concessions]. And there are few threats as cheap to make as an indirect / implicit threat that requires the other side to carry it for you.

And note that [concession] in this context doesn't need to be the nominal subject of negotiation. To dip into the OP context of Greenland as a US-Denmark negotiation, a weak threat over Greenland does not have to be answered with a handover of Greenland. It might be resolved by something like Denmark taking (or not taking/changing) a specific policy position on, say, chip production and trade with the Chinese. Or NATO funding. Or covering base costs. Or anything else of interest to the Americans. The value of cheap threats isn't [specific concession], but [concession] in general, especially in repeat game formulas where smaller [concessions] can add up over time if you know the other party is inclined to over-estimate your threats.

Going back to the general form, this is why if you on the receiving side of a threat, it helps to be able to deflect/dismiss it in ways without making concessions, especially if your goal is to deny the other party their ambition. In a 'defense' negotiation where you want to preserve the status quo, your goal is to raise the costs to the adversary enough that they no longer perceive it as worth the further cost to pursue. Dismissing indirect threats is preferable because a non-acknowledgement forces the offender into a decision to either drop the issue without gaining a concession, in which case 'you' have lost nothing, or to make the implicit threat more directly.

Forcing adversaries to make explicit threats rather than making concessions to implicit threats is good for you, the recipient of threats, because you are shifting the balance of costs against the threatener. The threatener wants to use implicit/indirect threats instead of direct threats in the first place because they are cheaper than explicit threats. Explicit threats often result in (typically) unwanted secondary effects, such as rallying the domestic political base around the leader being threatened, invite external intervention/support into the negotiation against the threatener, and raise the reputational costs to the explicit threatener if they back down by not carrying through. Not being willing to carry through is half the point of using the implicit threat in the first place. You, the defender, are under no obligation to make a concession to a weak threat that wouldn't be carried through.

But note- publicly treating an weak threat as a credible threat is itself a sort of concession to the threat-maker!

A more nuanced double-edged concession, but one that many parties willing to play 'the heel' will happily accept.

This is because the party elevating the threat is investing their own credibility and position into the adversary's threat for them. If you act as if the person threatening you really means it and would really do it, you are signaling to other people that they should take the adversary's threats as credible. And part of taking other people's threats as credible is making concessions to avoid the costs of those threats being carried out. Even if you make no other concession, and hope to reap in the benefits of domestic or external support, you can still be offering [concessions] in genenneral via enhancing the adversary's reputation and credibility to compel [concessions] in other- and future- negotiations.

Including negotiations with you. Which- if you later approach with the history/perceived perception of being Very Very Scared- can convince your own faction that the adversary is credible and sincere in their threats and thus warrant concessions earlier at less cost. But worse, you might also convince the opponent that you see them as scary and credible, and thus increasing the incentive of threats. Which not only running into your own framing bias, but also have the separate issue that- if you do intend to call a bluff- they are in a position where the cost of being called is now closer to the cost of going through with the threat anyway. Which is the context where you actually should be offering concessions if you are serious about denying the [thing] from a position of weakness, because your negotiating goal is to keep the adversary viewing the cost of carrying out the threat as worse than the equivalent.

But there's another drawback here- even if you act as if the adversary makes a strong and direct threat, that doesn't mean they have. Or that the resulting support will do more to deter than to encourage the mentality behind the explicit threats. Adversaries have their own ability to shape the information space, and there are as few things as easy to respond to of 'you said that' as 'no I didn't, here's the proof of what I did say.' Proof may be irrelevant to various groups that would be aligned regardless, but it is a way to separate would-be supporters who might have supported the defender against an explicit threat. That division- or even the division of people who express nominal solidarity but caveat it accordingly because they recognize the implicit-versus-explicit distinction going on that you conflated- can itself be another [concession] the adversary might want. Splitting a coalition because Party B won't be associated/stand by/defend Party A's rhetoric is a classic gain. Worse (for the defender) is if the allies they count on for support would rather prioritize ties with the aggressor than maintain a common front- see the recent sacrifice of European economic interest groups, the nominal heart and reason for being of the EU, to prioritize the American security relationship. Such divisions invite future exploitation, which can create future divisions, which can invite future future exploitations.

This is why the rule of thumb advice is 'don't give a concession for free' also ties to 'don't treat a threat as serious/credible if you don't have to.'

(This doesn't try to address next-level formulations, where things presented as negatives above may in fact be positives from a different paradigm. For example- European elites who would like to exaggerate American threats to build political support for a common European defense policy, and American elites who would happily play the role of villain if it allows European elites to increase European military spending so that the American elites can disengage from the continent. In such a case, 'threats' like 'do this and we'll end NATO' turn into incentives, but this is so far from base premise it's a huge rabbit hole of its own.)

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.

This is not from a statement of intention by the statement of a threat-maker. This is an inference of intention, from the observer.

This distinction matters, both in terms of who is making it, and what it implies one should do regardingn the threat maker.

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.

Substitute this with the distinction of who is making the which claim,

When I infer a threat again after he bombs Venezuela, *I act as if this indicates the US is willing to risk a war to get what they want.

Note that in this venue, the US does not have to be willing to risk a war to get what they want. But if you act as if they were, particularly if you believe they are, then you can be pushed into acting out the [concessions] such a framing would warrant, even by people who might accurately understand such a perception is unnecessary / factually wrong.

There is also a condition for how it might be avoided: "Sell or give us Greenland, on terms that are acceptable to the US".

This is, again, the inference of the threat, not the stated conditions of a threat.

This matters on the conditions-to-avoid end because it is much easier for a threatener to change the conditions if they never specified them in the first place. If the recipient would make concessions in response to implicit terms, they have already demonstrated their intent/willingness to make [concessions] in principle, and thus continue to make [concessions] to implications of further conditions... let alone further explicit demands. This deal's getting worse all the time and all that.

This is precisely the sort of context where forcing the adversary to make explicit their threats, and their conditions, can improve the defending state's ability to gather and utilize external support. Even if external supporters may not be willing to actively fight against the threatener on the defender's behalf, they may be willing to increase the costs of renenging on the deal, and so indirectly (or directly) enforce the deal in a way that stops the bleeding of [concessions] over the issue.

At the same time, this is a context where implicit threats may result in [concessions] short of the inferred condition that none the less encourage the use of implicit threats in the future. If, say, the Danish government makes a [concession] of 'we won't sell Greenland, but we will pay more of the costs of American soldiers in Greenland,' that may well be enough to lead the Trump administration to drop the push for Greenland's sale... but future considerations, such as budgetary constraints that lead to an attempt to short the bill, which a future administration may / may not use as a future pretext.

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.

He would have no leverage with this threat if people dismissed is as the weak, indirect threat it is instead of treating it as massive leverage, which requires a concession of credibility.

Leverage in negotiations is not an objective metric score. It is highly subjective. It is also subjective in both directions.

You are threatening to kill me if I don't give you what I want.

Typo.

And I agree with your sentiment. The US is engaged in seriously deranged, reckless behavior when trying to do a hostile takeover of land from an ally. And threatening to break up an important alliance when that alliance is already under serious threat from another nuclear power.

If Greenland is so important, they sold offer enough money and/or get good lease arrangements.

Typo edited. That one is fairly important for the overall message.

Trump:

We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor... I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we will do it the hard way.

You're right that this doesn't mean Trump is going to invade, in the same way that "plata o plomo" doesn't mean you're going to get the plomo. However, the existence of the plata option doesn't make it not a threat.

Was anyone anywhere unaware that the U.S. does in fact have the ability to seize Greenland by force? I understand it's politic to pretend that this is irrelevant, but I think a lot of people have started to think it really is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant, and it's fair to remind people: we're negotiating not because we have to, but because we want to.

Everyone is aware of that, that's the point. When you are holding a deadly weapon and the other guy isn't, then "We respect your sovereignty and would never do that" isn't a threat, "I'll use this if I have to" is absolutely 100% a threat.

Do you think that non-denial of willingness to acquire the territory of a sovereign ally by military means, in the context of said ally having strongly rejected the peaceful transfer of said territory, is of little importance? No shit Trump uses harsher language for ISIS than for Denmark.

”Rare earths” are not actually rare.

The ability to refine rare earths is rare. And that’s the real problem. It’s a very complicated and very toxic process to get from monazite ore to industrial-grade purified neodymium and cerium, and China is the only country who has the combination of institutional knowledge and disregard of environmental standards to do it at scale.

So just saying “it has rare earths” is not a valid reason for anything.

I mean, the island has more square miles than people, and the inhabitants are poor. This is almost the ideal place to refine rare earths and just... have the toxic lakes somewhere they won't hurt anyone.

Currently horrified by the notion that this might be practically impossible for Trump to accomplish simply because it would secure his legacy - and so any anti-Trump successor would have a strong incentive to just hand it back to Denmark for partisan signaling reasons. Any legacy Trump wants to leave needs to be durable against a predictable successor every few years who wants to repudiate and smash it.

I think it would be incumbent on Trump to make Greenland useful if he wants this not to happen. If Trump actually does something important with Greenland, like establishing a valuable mining operation or clarifying its military importance, this introduces friction that may prevent anti-Trump operatives from giving it up so easily. There will be blowback in taking Greenland, and there will be blowback in any event of returning it. It will be much harder for the territory to be a lasting part of Trump's impact if its only utility is "yeah Trump got us Trump land for some reason."

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.

Denmark would probably take it back if they were offered - Greenland is practically self-governing and requires minimal resources out of Denmark to maintain. I think the likely scenario - if Trump takes it - is that Greenland is offered some degree of independence, if not complete national independence. There is an appetite for it in the territory, though they vastly prefer Denmark's rule to a hypothetical American occupation.

I think Puerto Rico (and the other US territories) are a bit of a cautionary tale for any Greenlanders looking to join the US. In Denmark, Greenland is represented roughly proportionally to its population (which to be fair, is rather small, about 1%).

The smallest US state by population is Wyoming. I do not see Congress granting two senators to an island with 10% of the population.

And the way the US system works, no statehood means no federal representation whatsoever. So while it would be in the interests of whomever gets to exploit the natural resources to just pay every resident of Greenland 100k$/year for their trouble, this is something which would be hard to enforce. (Of course, if the US gov does pay that, that will probably attract other US citizens. Probably half of Alaska would move there.)

Once you are a territory, your concerns are not the concerns of the US politics. Who cares about Puerto Rico? (Compare and contrast with the Cuban exiles in Florida, who despite being a smaller group have shaped US Cuba relations for decades simply by virtue of being a relevant demographic in a battleground state.)

I think Puerto Rico (and the other US territories) are a bit of a cautionary tale for any Greenlanders looking to join the US.

They're the second most wealthy place in the Caribbean by per-capita GDP PPP (Guyana moved way ahead thanks to oil discovery, something which figured into the recent Venezuela unpleasantness), and the wealthiest by nominal GDP. Their people are full American citizens with the right to move to the US mainland. Their territorial government is terrible, but that isn't due to being part of the US. There's a reason they keep not voting for independence.

Puerto Rico (and the other US territories)

Who cares about Puerto Rico?

Virgin Islands erasure. :-(

Seriously, you should point directly at the Virgin Islands instead of just lumping them together in "the other US territories". They even have much more comparable population—87 thousand vs. Greenland's 57 thousand and Puerto Rico's 3.2 million—and they were purchased from Denmark just as Trump is considering purchasing Greenland from Denmark.

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.

I thought this interview on the subject with a former Bush administration advisor was great. She brought up a new angle that I haven't seen elsewhere- that Greenland would be a great spot for putting in a space base to manage polar-orbit satellites. Currently that's done from bases in Svalbard and northern Alaska, but both of those are inconvenient for various reasons. It would be nice for the US to have a spot that's close to the North Pole, relatively close to the Northeast USA, and that we completely control.

She also mentions that frustration that the US Military leaders have about dealing with Europe, which as been building for many many years. There's no central European leadership, so they have to navigate this maze of 27 separate national bereaucracies. All of which are far, far weaker than the US military, but we still have to pretend like it's some sort of equal partnership and ask nicely for permission. That can potentially be a big problem, like when you're running a critical top-secret military operation and time is of the essence. The Arctic is a harsh environment, and the US is the only country other than Russia that really has the ability to control it.

My personal opinion is that there's a lot of good, rational reasons to want Greenland. Missile defense, offshore oil/gas drilling, satellite control, transpolar shipping routes, mineral mining, all sorts of stuff. We don't exactly know what the future will hold, but it's usually a safe bet that owning a large land mass in a critical strategic area is rather helpful, and we definitely don't want China or Russia to get it. And all of this has been thought of by the generals and think-tank analysts who camp with the idea.

But I don't think any of that is why Trump wants it. He's a politician with a flare for the dramatic. He wants to see the US, and him personally, secure a big win by seizing a big chunk of land and expanding our boundaries. Having it look extra-big on the Mercator projection makes the deal even sweeter. I have to admit, as a patriotic America, that idea does get my blood pumping a bit, even if it had no other rational reason. I suspect that's also why Denmark is so firmly against it. They were willing to sell us the Danish West Indies even though those had more people and more economic value. They're willing to subsidize the hell out of the small Inuit population in Greenland just so that they can have the national pride of "owning" a big chunk of land. In the past they were saying that Greenland had the right to independance whenever it wanted, but now they seem to be pulling back on that, because they know that an independant Greenland would quickly get bought up by the US.

Why can't the US launch satellites from Danish territory?

It's not for launching the satellites, that still happens from more equitorial latitudes. The issue is having a control/monitoring/intelligence facility. I'm sure they could do that from Danish territory, just like they're currently doing in Svalbard. But they're they have to share with a lot of other countries, and the number of satellites and control facilities is only going to keep growing, so at some point it just becomes nice to directly control the land. It makes generals... uncomfortable... when their most critical satellite control facilities are on someone else's land, and it raises the awkward question of what they would do if Denmark actually tried to make them leave.

There is a flaw in this reasoning though. If the US needs Greenland for its defence because it doesn't trust Denmark, then Denmark shouldn't trust the US either, and there is no reason for them to give up territory to help the US with its mutual defence.

Well, there's different reasons to not trust a country. Denmark seems like a nice country, and we've historically had good relations. But they just don't have the capability to do anything in the Arctic or in space. If they decide they dont trust the US and want to kick them out from Thule military base in Greenland... what exactly is Denmark going to do about it? Send some dogsleds?

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.

"All of the above," basically. In particular, this is the best article I read last year when this topic was kicking around.

What various pearl-clutching reporters expressing confusion (and disdain) on the topic seem to miss is that China has been working toward its own control of Greenland for years:

Over the past seven years, China has attempted to grow its footprint in the region through scientific research expeditions, infrastructure investments, and natural resource acquisitions. By most metrics, the strategy has failed to take off, as major projects continue to be blocked due to security concerns. But China’s continued interest in Greenland reflects the island’s geostrategic importance—and China’s global lead in rare earth mining and processing expertise keeps the U.S. adversary on the table as a potential future mining partner in Greenland. Greenland’s minister of business and mineral resources warned that while Western partnerships are preferred, without an influx of investment, Greenland will have to turn to other partners, including China. Already, Chinese rare earth company Shenghe Resources is the largest shareholder in the Kvanefjeld mine, with 12.5 percent ownership. Shenghe signed an MOU in 2018 to lead the processing and marketing of materials extracted from the site.

This is almost refreshingly straightforward game theory in action; America could only afford to be lazy about the strategic importance of Greenland as long as China was lazy about the strategic importance of Greenland. As you say--we have bases there, it's NATO territory, why talk about control now? The answer is: because Greenland is cheerfully taking Chinese money and our current options are "do something about that" or "don't do something about that."

I remember when Trump created the Space Force, I saw many chatterers online joke about how stupid this was, how Trump was crazy, and most of all--how his presumed Democrat successor was going to have to roll the whole mess back. There was even a sitcom! To the contrary, I heard from my military contacts that in fact the Air Force had been pushing for this move for years, and Trump was the guy who broke through all the bureaucratic hand-wringing and faction-wrangling to actually make it happen.

I suspect something similar is true of Greenland. For all our military adventurism, the United States of America has made a much bigger difference globally by being the economic center of the world. China learned that lesson, and is now doing what it can to overtake us in the same way. So yes, stuff like oil and rare earth minerals and trade routes are important--but so is "sphere of influence." Smart people recognize this, and I would guess that our national security apparatus communicated some of this to Trump, and in typical Trump fashion he said "oh hey everyone, I guess we need Greenland now? Let's stop pussyfooting around and start the negotiations!"

The story of the establishment of the Space Force before Trump was ever involved is long and fascinating. The key proponent that actually got it done was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Raymond . The short version is that there had been elements within the USAF, NASA, and congress that have been arguing for a separate military branch for outerspace operations since the 60s. The space stuff actually started in the Army, though it transistioned to the Air Force by the 60s. In the early 80s they finally made a separate Space Command org within the USAF, but this is when the case for a separate force really started to gain momentum, though it would be a long time with an abortive attempt until it actually happened. The argument hasn't really changed in nature at all over time, just relevence, as the circumstances have changed around that Air Force: the subject matter expertise, experience, and career paths for the space related operations has become too complex and specialized to remain in the USAF, just like the Air Force itself emerged from the Army for largely similar reasons. General Raymond spoke many times about his own path through the ranks, mirrored by many of his peers, where he'd be productivly commanding a org within the Space Command of the USAF, get promoted and transferred out of SC back to the general aviation Air Force, and everything he was working on back in Space Command fell apart. Yanking the COs and NCOs back and forth, in and out of Space Command produced worse officers/nco performance in both orgs, chaotic career paths, and hastened retirements of COs to fled to the private sector to continue to follow their passion for space. Essentially that we would be unable to field a competent space command as long as the career people with the expertise could be yanked out of the org at any time without recourse. The Air Force had been promising increased autonomy and specialization to the existing space command, stating they'd stop jerking the career people around and allow them to specialize but never made any real moves to implement it. I think, in my very amateur observations since then, these arguments have been borne out by the record of the USSF, which is operating quite effectively according to everything I've seen and read, especially compared to the other branches. (particularly the Navy which is a mess).

The answer is: because Greenland is cheerfully taking Chinese money and our current options are "do something about that" or "don't do something about that."

If all China's doing is trading with them, couldn't we simply try to outbid China? Why is annexing the place the only form that "do something" can take?

If all China's doing is trading with them, couldn't we simply try to outbid China?

Probably, but international trade is complicated. What goods do we manufacture that the people of Greenland/Denmark want? What do the trade surpluses and deficits look like between the various interested parties? Who controls how much of who else's currency/economy/etc.? Can China be counted on to "play fair" in response to being outbid?

Why is annexing the place the only form that "do something" can take?

It's very clearly not the "only form" that "do something" can take! Hence:

...in typical Trump fashion he said "oh hey everyone, I guess we need Greenland now? Let's stop pussyfooting around and start the negotiations!"

And, in typical Trump fashion, he is throwing out alarming possibilities as a way of encouraging actual forward motion on a deal. This is a common way to do business. It's not an uncommon way to do international politics. Is it a good way to do those things? Perhaps not. But this is a nuanced, complex, and contentious question, which is broadly being treated with ridicule instead of reflection and thought. This is understandable in that humans tend to want to respond to bombastic rhetoric with their own bombastic rhetoric. But Trump's "solution" to interminable geopolitical handwringing is often to flip some tables and force action. Whether he gets exactly the results he wanted (or promised) seems secondary, in his mind, to whether he at least moves the needle. And prior to Trump's rhetoric, it seems clear, the needle was moving slowly but inexorably in China's favor.

I think something that is often missed is that Greenland does not want to remain Danish. Greenland wants independence. Right now they are subsidized by Denmark which makes straight up leaving a financial problem.

I suspect that #3 is at least a large part of the reason (although obviously it's possible that it's an idea for a number of good reasons, and/or bad ones!), and the US doesn't want to gamble on Greenland finding a better partner in e.g. Russia or China or to have to worry about the status of its bases if it leaves Denmark. I could be wrong about this, but it does answer the question of "why not just station more troops under the arrangement with Denmark we already have?" - it's possible there's concern about that being a viable strategy long term. Even if Greenland doesn't declare independence, there may also be concern in the Trump administration about the long-term viability of Denmark as a partner.

It's also worth noting that apparently the Danes tried to get the US to leave Greenland after World War Two (when the US seized Greenland) and the US...didn't, although we did offer to buy it in 1946. So this is a longstanding US security concern.

I also wonder if "US owning Greenland" is a stretch goal with the idea being that by pushing for buying Greenland outright something like US-subsidized independence with a Compact of Free Association suddenly looks very tame and reasonable.

I also wonder if "US owning Greenland" is a stretch goal with the idea being that by pushing for buying Greenland outright something like US-subsidized independence with a Compact of Free Association suddenly looks very tame and reasonable.

That does sort of make sense, with Greeland being a far-off island with such a small population. But one catch is that those COFA islands usually don't do very well... with no one to fight for them in Congress, they end up unfunded and forgotten.

My personal preference would be to absorb Greenland into the state of Maine. That would give it two full senators and a representative to secure its funding. At a distance of about 2500 km from Portland to Nuuk, it's... not exactly close, but not an impossible distance either. Plus, Maine is already a state with some infrastructure to handle cold weather, the Canadian border, and indigenous groups. It also has one of our largest naval shipyards in Bath Iron Works, which would likely play a critical role in building ships to patrol the Arctic.

We could also absorb it into Alaska, which is even better developed to handle large quantities of Arctice territory, but that might lead to some awkward conflicts with Canada if Alaska was having to constantly cross through Canadian territory to administrate its new land on the other side.

My personal preference would be to absorb Greenland into the state of Maine.

Interesting idea!

We should relocate all the Greenlanders to Nunuvat for a one-time payment (One to them and a bigger one to Canada for taking them). Then Greenland might be worth the trouble.

The US military, regardless of what the political branches think, is convinced that Global Climate Change is very real. Most of the northern arctic ice is going to melt off, leaving behind navigable water ways, habitable islands (at least habitable enough for major military installations) and major oil and minerals deposits. And due to the nature of a globe shaped earth all this stuff is both on North America’s doorstep, and Russia’s. So for the last ten or twenty years the military has been quietly screaming at the top of its lungs to anyone who will listen that controlling the Arctic is one of the paramount security concerns of the 21st century. Greenland is very important for controlling the Arctic, especially considering Canada is getting more and more politically unreliable. And leaving it under Denmark’s control is a giant liability, since Greenland is pretty close to Russia and Denmark has zero military capacity. They lasted literally 8 hours against Nazi Germany, and are probably in worse shape today.

Also to Trump personally I think there’s probably a legacy interest of being the first President in 150 years to make a major territorial acquisition for the United States.

Also to Trump personally I think there’s probably a legacy interest of being the first President in 150 years to make a major territorial acquisition for the United States.

Would that even be a positive? 50 000 inuits who barely speak english who live 6000 km from LA and have few common interests. The US is unruly because of its size and diversity already. The US should if anything be divided up, not expanded to handling Venezuela and Greenland.

How many people are complaining about having Alaska?

Inuit is already plural. The singular is Inuk.

And in Inuktitut it also has a dual form, Inuuk (one Inuk, two Inuuk, many Inuit); Greenlandic, also known as Kalaallisut, is the only member of the Inuit-Yup'ik-Aleut family not to have the dual form.

habitable islands (at least habitable enough for major military installations)

From what I've heard of Adak Island, that's not a high bar either. I was told that their version of a windsock is a log on a heavy chain.

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?

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?

It seems possible that American military leadership foresees growing tensions between Europe and the US and that securing Greenland is easier now than it will be later. It also looks like the US understands they can no longer control the entire world, so they'll take the next best option which is to assert their control over half the world and all of its shipping lanes, potential outposts, etc.

The current administration and the US military still show that they embrace conflict theory over mistake theory, at least insofar as it relates to the Western Hemisphere. Maybe they're wrong to see the world this way, but it's an undeniable fact that the quickest way to get what you want is to be the biggest kid on the block.

I still believe Europe is capable of great things militarily, so they're going to have to start flexing because the Trump admin are less likely to kowtow to finger wagging. Trump and crew are at least signaling they will take it with force if they believe the cost-benefit is workable.

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.

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?

Yeah, it seems like the US can just negotiate a treaty to build additional military bases in Greenland. If the concern is that Denmark is not adequately defending Greenland from the Russians and the Chinese, a treated could be negotiated for that as well. (In fact, arguably there is already a treaty in place -- the NATO treaty.)

If the concern is that someday Greenland might exercise its sovereignty and ask the US to leave, well, that didn't work out for Cuba.

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.

Does the US actually want to defend Denmark? The idea could be to take the important and profitable parts of Europe and then let Europe manage its own defence.

Defending mainland Denmark, Estonia, Sweden and Ukraine is too expensive and risks nuclear war. Having a sanding army ready to fight off the Russians is simply not worth it for the US.

Defending Greenland without being forced to defend mainland Denmark is a far more attractive option.

It's a pretty nasty development for the innocents of nigh defenseless small countries who will be at increased risk of getting invaded, tortured and killed by the hun. I feel it's a consequence of the cultural divide that has appeared between the US Reps and the European libs. There's no real feeling of unity there. And all this plays right into Putin's hands, who afaik identified that supporting Trump into power by various means would help cause this divide, weakening the democracies of the world.

European countries can defend themselves. During the cold war even mid tier European countries had hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Russia does not want to restore the iron curtain and retake East Berlin either. What this is the end of is European countries being a joke in terms of our militaries.

Trump is American and is responsible for the US. Reaching the conclusion that the US shouldn't spend hundreds of billions subsidizing European defence does not require Russian meddling.

Additional possible reasons:

  • To exercise jurisdictional authority on territorial water. This seems like the strongest reason to me. Denmark allows US military bases, but Denmark can and will allow any activities in the Greenland territorial waters that they want. Interests may not be aligned because the U.S. is (almost entirely) responsible for naval security but Denmark has the policy authority. The U.S. would very much prefer to have both.

  • It is a prime location for Golden Dome ABM infrastructure. While Denmark has permitted military bases, they may not allow more distributed infrastructure deployments that such installations might require, and they may have agreed or will agree to anti-missile-defense treaties which would prohibit its deployment in their territory.

rare earths

Might be it. Greenland's rare earths have a large overlap with rare earths that are monopolized by China.

Might explain Venezuela and Monroe Doctrine too. Because Brazil has a ton of rare earths, and invading Venezuela may be part of keeping China away from the Americas.

That being said, China's rare earth monopoly has to do with how they have industrialized it. The rare earths themselves are moderately abundant around the world. I don't see how Greenland would help with the industrial process. That's the hard part.

Not worth destroying NATO and heralding in a tri-polar world.

I think rare earths are basically strip-mined? The environment in Greenland does not... seem conducive to this kind of extraction. I don't think even the wildest projections for AGW are thinking that it won't remain covered by an ice sheet with a thickness measured in kilometers for the forseeable future, just to pick the most obvious issue.

I had no idea that the average ice sheet thickness was 5000 ft ! basically Antractica on the North Pole.

If Trump really wants it he can make a deal (under threat of sanctions or impossibly high tariffs on Danish exports) with Denmark to offer a referendum with three options:

  • Remain part of Denmark
  • Declare independence (leading to economic ruin and the vast majority of the population having to leave as subsidies dry up)
  • Become an American territory with a $100k cash payment per person and a continuation of subsidies

My guess is that in this scenario the overwhelmingly Inuit population which has some of the highest rates of alcoholism and suicide in the world will vote for option 3, or a modified option 2 with the explicit promise of an economic suzerainty relationship that is essentially 3 in all but name.

This referendum would conform to both EU and UN guidance on the rights of indigenous peoples and self-determination blah blah blah.

However it would probably also require Congress, and they are both uninterested and know that Trump gains and loses interest in this topic regularly.

If Trump really wants it he can make a deal

My intuition here is that poor negotiating has soured his counterparties on the idea of deal making, and they weren't in a position to be looking for one anyway. Denmark seems happy enough with the status quo, plus Trump is at least coming across as more than a bit of a jerk here: why should they be open to any offers at this point?

I felt the same way about the "merge with Canada" thing: maybe a good idea long term for all involved, but approached in a disrespectful manner that soured voices that needed to agree. Hardly the work of a "master negotiator" unless you think that selling used cars is the pinnacle of such.

Without knowing much of the Inuit or Greenland's colonial history, something tells me a group of North American indigenous people probably wouldn't be willing to consent to US government rule. There's a bit of history there.

Amerinds in the modern US love America.

North American indigenous people have also been some of the most patriotic and fiercest fighters for the United States.

North American indigenous people

Fun fact! The Norse settlement of Greenland predates the modern Inuit population, although the Norse population seems to have died out on its own (and there is evidence of a separate, even earlier culture unrelated to the other two). I assume this is the basis of Denmark's original claim, but it's at least interesting in (technically) differing from the general "European power took land from natives" narrative.

Yes, arguably the Inuit inhabitants are colonizers as well displacing the earlier inhabitants which come from a separate wave of settlement (and there was at least some small amount of friction with the Norse inhabitants before they died out too).

There is hardly anywhere on the planet that that isn't the case.

That makes sense to me.

My guess here is more based on contemporary cultural narratives and vibes shaping perceptions vs actual history

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.

What would be the basis for sanctions? Has not Denmark already committed to respecting the decision of the Greenlandic population on the question of political separation?

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

Convince the locals to declare independence.

Reuters:

U.S. officials have discussed sending lump sum payments to Greenlanders as part of a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join the United States, according to four sources familiar with the matter.

While the exact dollar figure and logistics of any payment are unclear, U.S. officials, including White House aides, have discussed figures ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, said two of the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The idea of directly paying residents of Greenland, an overseas territory of Denmark, offers one explanation of how the U.S. might attempt to "buy" the island of 57,000 people, despite authorities' insistence in Copenhagen and Nuuk that Greenland is not for sale.

One of the sources familiar with White House deliberations said the internal discussions regarding lump sum payments were not necessarily new. However, that person said, they had gotten more serious in recent days, and aides were entertaining higher values, with a $100,000-per-person payment—which would result in a total payment of almost $6 billion—a real possibility.

Among the possibilities being floated by Trump's aides, a White House official said on Tuesday, is trying to enter into a type of agreement with the island called a Compact of Free Association.

The precise details of COFA agreements—which have only ever been extended to the small island nations of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau—vary depending on the signatory. But the U.S. government typically provides many essential services, such as mail delivery and military protection. In exchange, the U.S. military operates freely in COFA countries, and trade with the U.S. is largely duty-free.

6 billion is a rounding error in the defense budget, so they could go even higher. 100K is not life changing money though as Greenlands median incomes are rather high.

If it's anything like Nunavut, the cost of living there is extremely high.

I must admit, I had not heard this was an official position. Regardless, an offer to bribe the people runs into three problems:

  1. The money promised must be significantly more than what Denmark is currently providing, to account for the uncertainty inherent in a regime change.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

For 2, there's a specific problem- Greenlandic whaling. This is uncontroversial in the Nordics(mainland Danes don't personally do any, but they're more than happy to permit it elsewhere, and the Nordics are the most prolific whalers in the world aside from Japan), but in the USA....

Inuit whale in the US as well.

The money promised must be significantly more than what Denmark is currently providing

One article indicates that Denmark's current subsidies are a bit more than 10 k$ per person-year.

Which would be worth about $200,000 per person in net present value.

Yeah. none of this is insurmountable, just very expensive. The question becomes how much the US is willing to pay.

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.

Perhaps you could point me to the time in history when this wasn't the case? There is no turning, there is no change, there is not even a policy difference. Only rhetoric. As you note, the US has had a military and resource interest in Greenland for a century. We already have access, we already took the place over once. The only thing that's new is Trump saying things on Truth Social. Trump is vocalizing actual US policy, as opposed to the fake policy everyone else pretends we're doing for PR reasons. Real international politiks are real.

Even if we treat this by the standards of traditional power politics, traditionally, when a big country has a vassal state that has gone above and beyond the call of duty to pay obeisance to the patron, the patron would still not turn around to fuck the smaller vassal just for the lols.

Depends on who you think is being fucked with. Greenland, Denmark, or Russia?

Denmark, obviously.

See, I think it's Russia, and Denmark is just happy collateral damage.

But I am generally in favor of rubbing Europe's nose in its failed sovereignty and the consequences of demilitarizing.

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.

It used to be that these bodies were responsible for enforcing UN laws in the world

There's no such thing as "UN laws." Quite the opposite: the UN goes out of its way to recognize national sovereignty. It has "resolutions" and "conventions" and "peacekeeping actions" but very little hard power. No country, least of all the US, would allow the UN to mess with its own internal affairs if they didn't want to. EG, it doesn't really matter that most of the UN has ratified the ban on landmines because the US, China, and Russia never agreed, and a lot of the countries that did sign that ban are still using them and simply lying about it.

Where the UN did work well is simply being a neutral ground for diplomats to come together and talk, including some very hostile nations during tough times. But that only works as long as people understand what the real game is. I think sometimes smaller nations forget how powerless then UN is, because it flatters themselves think of themselves as equal parterns in this grand international community. But the real world doesn't work that way, and any sort of treaty only lasts as long as both sides are willing to honor it.

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.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats