site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24448 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 14, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So something actually happened regarding Greenland.

Details are fuzzy, but Trump just posted that the US made an agreement with Denmark and Greenland gives the US permanent military control over Greenland, the right to expand its military presence there and, most importantly, to veto any foreign intervention on the island.

This will not make Greenland a part of the United States, which means Mercator Projection dominance lies beyond our grasp for now.

Critics will point out that this doesn't really change anything since the U.S. already had de-facto military control over Greenland. I think in these case the critics would be wrong. If Trump's post is accurate, this does seem substantially different from the previous agreement. It's permanent, the US can expand with Denmark's permission, and they can deny foreign expansion without Denmark's say so.

It's unclear exactly what the US gave up in order to get these concessions, but Trump says it will cost the US taxpayer nothing. Perhaps there are trade concessions?

What's somewhat interesting is that the US barely has a presence on Greenland at all anymore. At one point, in the Cold War, it stationed 10,000 troops there consisting of a quarter of Greenland's population. Today, just 150-200 unlucky souls man the Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland. Perhaps that's what makes this agreement valuable. The U.S. can now deny adversaries such as China a perch in Greenland without having to actually send in troops.

So something actually happened regarding Greenland.

Details are fuzzy, but Trump just posted

So there's no actual reason for thinking that anything happened, then?

There is credible reporting that a deal will be signed at the U.N. soon. It could fall out between now and then, sure, but this appears to be more than just Trump's usual theatrics.

Yes, there are other sources that makes this believable, but OP started a whole thread on this issue based on the lone source "Trump".

"Researchers at NASA claims they have found signs of habitation on Mars" <- start a thread

"A guy drinking engine coolant behind the bus stop who know for certain claims he has found signs of habitation on Mars" <-maybe wait for some actual sources

Something I saw on twitter- apologies, I cannot find the link right now, but it was some sort of "anonymous insider" so not an authoritative source anyways. Still, I thought it was interesting.

Basically, they said that the main difference is that this deal is now between the US and Denmark, full stop. Not NATO, which was the deal before. So even if NATO falls apart, this deal would still continue. That's a small, but interesting detail.

Again, sorry for the lack of source, I'm just reporting the rumor of a rumor. But I thought it was plausible and interesting.

US and Denmark and Greenland. So if Greenland leaves Denmark (which is somewhat more likely than NATO falling apart, I suspect), the deal still holds.

Another net negative for Russia's nearest, most vulnerable neighbors, probably.

Greenland wants to be independent. But it's unclear it can actually make it on its own- the Marine Mammal Protection act makes actual incorporation into the US unacceptable, but a micronesia like arrangement where it gets to use the US dollar, enjoy US military protection, and get US companies as major employers(probably for mining, shipping, etc) in exchange for trade concessions seems agreeable to both parties. That's probably the eventual goal.

I don’t think full independence of an island in a strategic location and that has oil and other minerals is possible. The island is too sparsely populated to make a real go at defending itself. Autonomy within another country is probably the best option for them

Full sovereignty isn't going to really happen, obviously, but I think you're overrating the possibility of actual incorporation into a larger power. They don't want this.

Presumably it's just making it official that the current situation (with the US having full control of a military base there, and no one else) is, indeed permanent. Maybe that was always "de facto" true, but it's good to get these things in writing. Countries having long lives, and it would be bad to build up a huge missile defense base there only to have it taken over in 100 years the way the Panama or Suez Canals were.

Of course, it's not like a piece of paper would really stop an aggressive military action, but it does help to legitimize increasing the US presence there. That base might be small, but it location make it pretty important to military satellites and missile defense.

Details are fuzzy

This. Without sources, I have only your say-so. Not that I doubt that Trump has made some noises concerning Greenland.

There are claims by the USG which I think are credible. When Trump said he had kidnapped Maduro, I updated a lot on that because I could not see what he would gain by deceiving the world about that for a few hours.

By contrast, any strategic claim about the Iran war (victory, Hormuz, Iranian bomb status, future of the Persian civilization) made by Trump is not something I would update on.

Applying this epistemic standard to the Greenland situation, the only thing I conclude is that he probably had some concessions so that Denmark would not simply go on record stating there is no deal. This does not mean that there is, in fact, a deal.

With the mid-terms looming large, it seems to me that Trump is under a lot more pressure than Denmark is.

Nor do I think that China would try to invade Greenland. What they will probably want to do is invest in Greenland REE mining. This seems win-win: China has the know-how (unlike the US) and so far strongly prefers checkbook diplomacy to gunboat diplomacy outside their sphere of influence (unlike the US). Their policy is generally having their long-term interests in mind, and not written ad-hoc by an elderly narcissist with a Twitter account.

Denmark apparently has confirmed this, but as ever 'details remain unclear'.

Denmark and Greenland – an autonomous Danish territory – both hailed the agreement and said they would sign it on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York next week.

“A long period of uncertainty will hopefully be replaced by a binding agreement that strengthens security in the Arctic and North Atlantic,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a social media post on Saturday.

The deal respected Denmark’s “red lines” and was “important” in light of a changed security situation, he said.

This does not mean that there is, in fact, a deal.

There is a deal. Prediction markets are >95% for a deal being signed.

This doesn't mean that the deal will be meaningful in any capacity, but something is getting signed.

I think your calibration is off about when to trust Trump and when not to and that the details of the deal will broadly match his post on X.

Will update if wrong. Hope you do the same.

Applying this epistemic standard to the Greenland situation, the only thing I conclude is that he probably had some concessions so that Denmark would not simply go on record stating there is no deal. This does not mean that there is, in fact, a deal.

Denmark (and Greenland) are on the record stating that there is, in fact, a deal.

The agreement would bar non-NATO nations from establishing a military base or having a troop presence on the island — and would prohibit investments by non-allies in the critical minerals and mining sectors, according to the State Department.

Thanks for the source. I will concede to you, @porkpiehat and @phailyoor that this seems to be a deal. I think the military base provision is a nothingburger -- Denmark would have been unlikely to grant China the right to establish a military base in any case (nor is it obvious that China would have wanted a base there).

The investments by non-allies provision is certainly more of a deal. My understanding is that Western investment in Greenland mining has been less than enthusiastic, and China has shown some interest in investing in Greenland, but been blocked on a case-by-case basis so far.

I think that the purpose of Greenland wrt REE is mostly as a hedge against China cutting off Western access and less as a money-making-machine. Under these circumstances, it makes sense that China wants to invest there for purely strategic reasons, and it also makes sense for the West to limit Chinese investment.

Given the present information, I would be mildly surprised if there was nothing in the deal about foreign investment in mining, but the fine print matters, of course. What exactly are critical minerals, what kinds of investments are prohibited, what about Western companies partly owned by Chinese investors investing in Greenland and so forth.

I don't think that rare earths matter to this story and I doubt that the US will profitably extract them from Greenland.

China controls the rare earths market not because of superior geology but because of superior refining capacity. For a long time, China has sold rare earths for below the cost of production, driving western competitors out of business. Molycorp is the most famous example.

The US has ample supplies of most rare earths. What we lack is refining capacity. Fortunately, efforts are underway to create a price floor which will generate the necessary investments. And substitution is a real possibility as well. Tesla recently removed rare earths from its EV motors entirely.

What the US wants in Greenland is not rare earths, but to deny China naval and airspace real estate. Sure Denmark may have been unlikely to grant China access, but isn't it nice to have it in writing?

REE ores are not rare, although mining them is only viable in countries with lax environmental laws.

Would a place like Greenland be lax, however? A desert seems the best place to do highly toxic mining, but the locals probably don't see it that way.

No - that's kind of the point. The mountain west of America (outside a small number of national parks and suchlike) is, objectively, a good place to do highly environmentally damaging mining for the same reasons that the Australian outback is (or the central Asia steppe, which is where a lot of it ends up happening). The arctic is the sort of place where you should be more careful.

Greenland just ceded sovereignty to the United States. We’re calling it something else, we’re pretending that sovereignty is when you have a flag and a parliament and a Danish passport. But Greenland just ceded the legitimate use of the monopoly of violence to the United States. It’s a nice diplomatic fiction in a world that prefers fictions to naked force.

But make no mistake: American power is expanding. This isn’t really about installing military bases (although that required negotiated approval before, a key difference many are choosing to ignore). Anybody thinking in terms of tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in bases took a wrong turn in the 20th century.

Consider — Pituffik (Thule) is now operated by Space Force. American power in Greenland is less about stationing troops and more about coordinating satellite linkups.

Near-term predictions:

  • SpaceX will announce a massive deal to connect Greenland up to Starlink. (Actually it will probably be pretty cheap and derided even as “small”.)

  • American investment into improving Greenlandic ports will follow. Denmark’s monopoly on shipping will disintegrate.

Greenland has been a US protectorate since 1951 so it didn't lose anything here. This is just the US reasserting its existing powers.

More concerning is that this has proven the total fecklessness of Europe as a military power. And pushed it and the US away from each other diplomatically, which is the catalyst for the current Canadian crisis.

Maybe Greenlanders will get better internet and some mines, but the US' ever shrinking felt obligation to ally Europe seems more consequential.

But make no mistake: American power is expanding.

They already have a base on Greenland lol. Trump, as usual, acted retarded and gained nothing, but he's probably too senile to realise (or the last person to talk to him spun it in a positive way).

America now has permanent military control without oversight and veto over Greenlandic affairs.

Greenland just ceded sovereignty to the United States. We’re calling it something else, we’re pretending that sovereignty is when you have a flag and a parliament and a Danish passport. But Greenland just ceded the legitimate use of the monopoly of violence to the United States.

The US has had military bases in Greenland since the 1950s. To my knowledge, no non-NATO state ever had a base in Greenland during that timeframe, nor would it be in Denmark's strategic interest to allow any.

Granting a foreign power the right to establish a military base does not cede sovereignty, though. Plenty of countries have US bases, and while the US could arguably occupy any country (with a handful of exceptions), in practice it lacks both the will and the incentive to do so.

It might be illustrative to look at the bigger American foreign adventures since WW2, like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. Some were defeats (though not on the battlefield, but due to the will of the Americans running out), some were inconclusive. Despite being small engagements compared to the world wars, all of them were seen as a big deal politically. The US is not the Third Reich or Imperial Japan, occupying a foreign country, even one which is a hundred places below them on the list of countries by military spending, is a big deal for them.

To look at the practical effect of having US bases in your country, consider the role of the US airbases in the Gulf monarchies in the Iran war. From a logistics point, they would be ideal to launch bombers against Iran. Instead, the bombers were launched from airbases thousands of kilometers further away from the theater, likely because the monarchies did not give permission to attack Iran from their territory, which would have made them belligerents.

So, having a military base does not even give the US the ability to use that base freely. It gives them even less leeway to enforce their will on the host country in other matters. Suppose that in 2028 an ultra-woke US president wants to use his military power to legalize gay marriage in Qatar. I do not think he would succeed, unless for some reason this was his one and only policy objective and he actually occupied them.

For Greenland specifically, the situation is a bit different, because nobody gives a damn if trans women are allowed to compete in sports in Greenland or not. Greenland is relevant for two reasons: militarily, because ICBMs launched between the US and Russia would want to fly over it, and resource-wise. Militarily, the US was de facto able to use Greenland as much as they wanted, so Trump's deal offers nothing new.

So if the deal actually grants the US full rights to exploit the minerals of Greenland, I will agree with you that Denmark just signed away Greenland. But given what I have heard so far, I do not think this is likely. There will be some constraints on investments by foreign powers, but it is unlikely to grant the US any mineral rights.

I was with you and I was with you but I don’t see what mineral rights have to do with it. I’m actually more or less in agreement with those who say the mineral rights argument is a bit of a red herring. (I also saw this story that an American company has already signed for some rights, so if there is really anything to be mined maybe Americans can get it without a treaty having to spell it out.)

The minerals are really only essential if they give America control over some natural resource it can’t already control. But Alaska and the Mountain West have a bunch and Canada has more. I guess it helps to have a backup.

Maybe also the others here are right to distinguish between sovereignty and suzerainty. I think in this case it amounts to the same thing because Greenland has only 56,000 citizens — it genuinely doesn’t matter. There is almost nothing we need to impose on Nuuk. All they need to do is let Starlink in.

I also think it does make a big difference if America has to go through Denmark or can act on its own terms. If my hunch is right we will be installing a lot more than standard military bases as such. (Satellite radio terminals, missile launchers, Starlink hookups, drone bases, data centers, port terminal services, airports.) I expect this will also eliminate the Danish crown royal monopoly on shipping to Greenland, which has been a major constraint on developing anything in Greenland from the beginning.

I have more to say but I don’t want to start an entirely different topic. My working theory is that America is building a Golden Dome autonomous supercomputer satellite swarm, built entirely on the back of the Western Hemisphere and the Monroe Doctrine. It’s basically going to obviate war as traditionally fought. (Don’t worry, there will still be lots of it.) But America will basically be isolated from it. We are going to own space, and supercomputers, and fill them with missiles autonomously-built in factories sourced with raw materials from the Western Hemisphere. Greenland, basically, only matters insofar as it fits in with that.

My working theory is that America is building a Golden Dome autonomous supercomputer satellite swarm, built entirely on the back of the Western Hemisphere and the Monroe Doctrine.

This doesn't make sense given the orbital mechanics. If your space weapons are in orbits below GEO (and there are good reasons for not putting them that high), then they are all over the place. The raw materials are also a furphy - space isn't particularly raw materials intensive.

If American did own LEO at some point in the future, they wouldn't need Greenland.

You need Greenland because satellites operating in polar orbits are mostly out of range of the radio ground stations located at lower latitudes. I suppose it’s not needed but this makes the system redundant as opposed to being dependent on Alaska.

Also I don’t know what the space weapons are so I don’t know how the mechanics work out. But I imagine autonomous satellites are also going to hookup with ground-based systems that already exist.

Back in ancient times (you know, a decade ago) it was useful to have ground stations all over so your LEO satellites wouldn't have any gaps in communications coverage. I think Starlink proving out laser sat-to-sat networks has put an end to those days, though; any serious future natural security satellites are going to link to Starshield for backup comms at minimum.

This might not be the case today, but my guess is that by 2036 our serious peer opponents will be able to knock out even swarm constellations like Starlink in a serious war. Being able to put stuff on the ground still matters.

My working theory is that America is building a Golden Dome autonomous supercomputer satellite swarm

Maybe we're both nuts, but this would tie in with the recent statement that the US has deployed space weapons.

The US is becoming an empire. Suzerainty is a standard part of the empire package- the British empire was full of member states who governed themselves. Greenland gave up the right to an independent foreign policy, sure, that means their diplomats can't take bribes for favorable votes at the UN. Small potatoes. But the historical norm is for those kinds of small states to have no independent foreign policy anyways, and it's unlikely Greenland particularly values the ability for its eventual independence to influence world affairs.

Now, what happens with the inevitable breakup of Canada is far more interesting.

After the Spanish-American war, the US was already an empire.

Or the Louisiana purchase. St, Louis never voted to leave France.

I don’t know that the breakup of Canada is inevitable. I don’t think Canada is a “real country” and it basically exists at America’s convenience, but it is convenient. America doesn’t want to have to deal with Quebec, native rights, Ontario, or maintaining the vast Arctic expanses.

The way I see it America needs Canada to do the following:

  • Canada needs to provide America preferential access to its vast natural resources (those known and those that will be discovered)

  • Canada needs to not become a proxy for foreign powers or terrorists (Tamil Tigers, Chinese auto dumping, etc.) (This includes patrolling the Arctic)

  • Canada needs not to threaten America in its own right (talk of turning off energy, for instance)

Besides that, what do we need Canada for? They can maintain a separate legal system, they can deal with bi-lingualism, they can criticize us at the UN and accept our help when diplomats need to be extracted in a crisis. There are even some advantages in this arrangement. Nobody really wants to go to war for Canada.

I’ve even been thinking that Canada """joining""" the EU can be face-saving for everybody in many ways. The EU is already essentially an American client, Canada joining it is like your child running away from home by hiding in his sister’s room. Trump is thinking differently but I can imagine some formulation that makes everybody happy.

(To be clear I think the EU project is majority unlikely.)

Re: Canada and the EU, I have no idea what the hell von der Leyen is doing there (and I don't think she does either). We already have countries in Europe that don't want to be part of the EU, why are we going outside with some kind of associate partnership nonsense? This is like having Australia in the Eurovision. I don't know why either, apart from they have a big TV audience who watch it.

Maybe it's a straight swap: Greenland left the EU in 1982 and is now going with America, so maybe we get Canada in (belated) exchange?

Actually joining the EU in any meaningful way would absolutely lead directly to a breakup (or at least some sort of splintering) of the nation -- the US might like this of course!

While all the boomers will of course say in context of the current environment that they love Europe, (the comparison to the US is implicit) so far as I can tell the ruling class of the EU is basically Trudeau on steroids -- and that approach is enough to splinter off at least the West in the medium term.

Probably the non-GTA parts of Ontario too -- Quebec would probably be on board, and the Maritimes will vote for whomever sends them the best gibs (although both are capable of becoming riled over seemingly inconsequential things, so who knows) -- I'm not sure what the country would look like ten years hence, but it would not be the same.

Ironically Carney is probably looking for some sort of non-deal that will allow him to claim victory, similar to what Trump seems to be doing in the case of Greenland -- so I agree that anything substantive is unlikely to happen; he runs the risk of summoning that which he can't put down though.

I think this is an accurate take. It's possible that Canada and EU will sign some sort of fake deal that does nothing except affirm that the Orange Man is indeed bad.

The EU, of course, would love to take Canada's natural resources and give them some hostile MENA immigrants in return. I think Carney's too smart to let that happen.

From a perspective of what's best for Canada, they should just give the US whatever it wants, deregulate, shut the border, and watch GDP per capita soar to a level above that of the United States. Their relative poverty is only due to a weakness of spirit. Based on natural resources and human capital, there is no reason for them to be so poor. But at least we're not Americans, eh?

Pretty clearly an AI response.

Pretty clearly an AI comment.

I have never used AI to write

The whole thing is riddled with AI tells.

What kind of argument do you want me to respond with? I have never used AI to write anything

Greenland just ceded sovereignty to the United States.

Not sovereignty; suzerainity.

SpaceX will announce a massive deal to connect Greenland up to Starlink. (Actually it will probably be pretty cheap and derided even as “small”.)

Starlink already works in Greenland (it didn't originally because it was too far north, but the constellation has been expanded). However, it is illegal due to the actions of the Greenland government. Because Greenland retains self-government, that ban will remain (though it obviously does not apply to US bases)

It's permanent, the US can expand with Denmark's permission, and they can deny foreign expansion without Denmark's say so

Which of these are actually new things that the US was not allowed to do before? Expanding their military presence is something the US could already do. And the presence they had was already permanent. So that is two out of three of your claimed "substantial differences" that seem not so different after all. As for the third, I am not sure that really matters. Unless it allows the US to veto foreign companies, it doesn't prevent the Danes from doing anything they would have actually done in the first place. We would need the explicit details of the deal in order to determine if there is actually anything new here.

Were all of these in writing as the official agreement? Or just de-facto true? It could be that this is Greenland giving us permission to do what we already intended to do in a way that staves off international complaints and lets them save face.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp#art2para3M

This is the 1951 agreement. As far as I can tell, it gives America the ability to build bases on Greenland and treat them as under American jurisdiction. There seems to be no upper bound on bases or personnel, as long as the areas in question are used for military purposes only and don't interfere with the civilians.

This is why Trump's demands last year seemed so strange. There was no need for a takeover if the goal was to simply defend the place from foreign powers. He could have just sent troops there and rebuild the existing bases from the cold war, or build new bases as needed.

I'd... caution that agreement was more theoretical than practical. Look at the aftermath of the 1968 Thule crash for an example of the asterisks on it.

This is why Trump's demands last year seemed so strange.

As much as I'm against the Iran war, it showed there was nothing strange about that at all. Several allied countries refusing to allow American bases on their territory to participate in the assault, clearly shows that a lack sovereignty over the territory where your bases are placed is a huge strategic disadvantage.

Sovereign states have the obligation to prevent their territory being used to attack states they are not at war with. If the deal preserves Danish sovereignty (and both sides have said that it does) then it de jure requires Danish permission for the US to attack third countries out of Greenland. (As all other similar treaties with basing rights do). De facto the US could always ask for forgiveness and not permission, although that is true now anyway.

Sovereign states have the obligation to prevent their territory being used to attack states they are not at war with.

Huh? I'm pretty sure that the European countries that did permit the use of their bases didn't declare war on Iran.

If the deal preserves Danish sovereignty

Whether this deal solves the problem is another question. My point is that contrary to what many people said, there's absolutely nothing strange about Trump / the US wanting sovereign control over Greenland, and "but you're already allowed to build bases" is a terrible argument. If you're actually right about states having a positive obligation to prevent the use of bases on their territory in cases like this, it only strengthens my argument.

Huh? I'm pretty sure that the European countries that did permit the use of their bases didn't declare war on Iran.

Nor did the United States - actual declarations of war are out of fashion nowadays.

The serious point is "Did European and Middle Eastern countries which permitted use of bases on their territory to attack Iran think that this was an act of war?" In the case of the UK, the answer is "Yes" - we didn't allow US use of our bases until we felt there was an appropriate casus belli. (Within the region, Iran considered all countries hosting US bases to be fair game even if the bases were not actively being used to attack Iran, and Starmer announced that this constituted Iran attacking neutral countries allowing the British to act in collective self-defence).

Obviously this is cant and countries were making decisions based on politics, just as a decision about whether America is able to use Greenland to attack third countries in the 2030 War of the Big Stupid will depend on politics and not the text of the treaty.

This seems like a big nothing burger to keep Trump happy. Isn't this just the 1951 deal except with the USSR replaced by China and Russia? And it's not like Denmark was going to allow China to station soldiers there or China would even want to anyway. It just seems like great headlines but no substantial change.

It prevents the Chinese from investing in Greenland, which they have been doing in the form of buying up mining rights. They've even tried buying the abandoned Grønnedal naval base in Greenland in 2016. That was rebuffed with pressure from Washington but there was no guarantee CCP-backed Chinese companies wouldn't keep trying and one day succeed.

https://pure.diis.dk/ws/files/4834625/Chinese_investments_in_Greenland_DIIS_Report_2021_05.pdf

Any such ban is very likely in Denmark’s national interests and only needed external pressure because like everywhere, politicians tend to be extremely shortsighted and will rate ”Look, we’re getting $20M investment” over things such as ”Wait, how come China was able to control a critical resource and allow Russians to set up permanent spying stations here?”

You don't think that having a choice of patrons is in Denmark's national interest?

In this particular case no, I strongly don't think that having a choice to allow China control over such things is in Denmark's national interests. It's probably in the interests of specific politicians, parties or governments, but not in the national interests.

This is really no different from eg. mass immigration from MENA definitely not being in the national interests of a whole lot of European countries which hasn't prevented many of the governments supporting it. Politicians, parties and governments do short sighted stupid shit all the time.

In all seriousness, why not? Why is it in Denmark's interests for the US to take control of Denmark's territory and use it as a military staging ground, to do all the usual espionage and bugging and economic coercion that they do, giving nothing back, but opening those opportunities to multiple patrons and seeing what offers they get isn't in Denmark's interest?

Because the Chinese will take over their sovereign territory in exchange for $20M investment? sorry, too soon. Because the Chinese will eventually crush them with an iron fist and rule over them like they do Hong Kong? The Americans really are good guys and the Chinese really are bad guys?

I'm being snarky, but I genuinely want to know.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Lord Palmerston

First, I very specifically did not say that US control over the resources was good or in Denmark’s interests, only that allowing China to have such control is bad for Denmark’s national interests.

Second, it’s really two factors: US has already had military control over Greenland for six plus decades. So nothing really changes in that respect. Second, China is in cahoots with Russia (mostly in an opportunistic way, not due any ideological reasons) and Russia is an actual live threat to Europe, including Denmark (not in a ”Russia will win a land war” but ”Russian leadership is crazy enough that there is a very real risk they choose to go for an ’everybody loses’-scenario”).

Only if they really have a choice -- similarly with Canada, if China started actually doing anything serious in Greenland, a bunch of Marines would be showing up tout de suite.

Maybe. I still think that not wanting to look like imperial dictators who take your sovereign rights whether you want them to or not is important to the Americans, it holds together a good half of the empire that would otherwise demand a much higher level of oversight and bribery and wrangling. There's a decent amount of leverage there, but you have to show yourself willing to employ it.

America has never cared a pennysworth for the "sovereign rights" of other states -- America is about individual rights.

And in the event, this would be framed as using their imperial might in defense of the individual rights of the good people of Greenland/Canada against the Yellow Peril -- even if in reality broader State Department priorities like "we can't have China on our doorstep" were more at play. (see: Ukraine)

So basically, Greenland/Denmark has decided that they will accept (or rather, not resist) military occupation by the US, it's just that the "who runs the government" part is still Denmark's problem (or Greenland's, should they so decide).

Provided the text of the deal backs up that interpretation, Greenland is now de facto conquered American territory. (It sounds like a very Chinese way to run a conquest, honestly.)

One wonders what the implications for the other Arctic-holding State to the US' immediate north is, as this agreement inherently (and formally) threatens all Canadian trade capacity with non-US countries.

I do suspect that Canada will be next simply to ditch the boat anchor of military obligations and accept a similar deal as reality, because I don't believe for a second that any recent move on our part to try and desperately appear as a real country is at all genuine. Indeed, the only re-investment being made is to the navy... in that they actually bothered to buy some U-boats submarines, and I can honestly see a trade made for American foreign investment actively invited towards Atlantic Canadian facilities when it comes to the US' navy (in a way that benefits the only voters keeping the current government in power, of course- the auto workers were always fucked, but there will be zero immediate electoral consequence to that).

If anything in that "negotiation" survives it's going to be a similar type of US occupation. Should have bought the jets when we had the chance.

Canada will just crack up rather than accede to US suzerainty. The US will be dictating the foreign policies of independent Quebec, Nunavut, Prairieland, etc, make no mistake, but 'Canada' the country? Never will it agree to that.

Canada will just crack up rather than accede to US suzerainty.

The funny thing about current American negotiating posture is that the people it affects correctly perceive it as a deal with/calling out them, directly.

If electoral and social systems for reform were still as functional as they were in the 1980s this would go a lot smoother but those systems have atrophied in all relevant areas as well, ironically thanks to the US.

I honestly see it as a public declaration of "Your country is now under new management. Here is an absurdly generous severance policy that contains everything your line workers ever wanted. The layoffs begin in 3 months."

(The executives and tenured personnel threw it back in their face claiming "they built this company", and are flailing around trying to desperately undo that decision. But they needed the help of departments they fired 20 years ago to have any chance of this working.)

Reminds me a lot of Elon buying Twitter.

You obviously don't have any obligation to do so but as someone who hasn't been closely following the Canadian plotline and isn't super familiar with Canadian politics, I'd love to better understand what you mean. Maybe there's an article you could point me towards?

Alternatively I'd love to read a write-up (past or future) by you on it.

I have a TL;DR of the current tensions and situation here and here.

This was what was supposed to happen in the 2025 election, and I think that if it had Canada [as in, its bureaucracy] could have ultimately kept a lot of its power as it renegotiated its posture as an American satellite state without interference from said bureaucracy (who were clearly intending to let their Opposition go and do this, based on the polling at the time).

But what happened instead is that legacy Canadians (the 65+ set, specifically) dug their heels in and halted that reform. (I'm reminded of the "hick boomercons all voting Trump"; this is the Canadian version of of that.)
Trump's negotiating style, which personally targets those people specifically, didn't help the Reform cause.

The current problem Canada has, and it's not being talked about very much, is that it's actively growing apart in a way (in the "forming legitimate State capacity to self-govern") it's never really done before. I was shocked in early 2025 (before Trudeau stepped down) when Premiers were running around having foreign policy discussions- in a federal system that's functioning properly, that's not supposed to happen- but it is here because most provinces depend on the US for something like 90% of their economy (cities less so, and as you'd expect, cities voted for the war).

Generally the pattern with Canadian politics- which has been true since before WW1- is "try to be independent, succeed, give up anyway". Which I think we're seeing right now; while I underrate European willingness to make a trade deal whereby Canada keeps most of its industry (because Germany needs that industry running to prevent a Worker's Revolution in its nation... which, ironically for America, is what Trump represents) maybe I'll be surprised by what they allow.

But I have no reason to believe this arrogant stunt by the capital/Eastern Canadians won't end the same way.

If only these Canadians hated Washington more than they did their own countrymen- sure, the "quick, pay our countrymen so they'll fight for us" is coming now, but this is all just fair weather talk. Maybe part of that's American urban vs. rural propaganda (against which Canada has no institutional defense, why Red correctly sees Blue-aligned Canada as an enemy nation, and if you've read much of @FCfromSSC's theses I think this unravelling is a blueprint for how a larger American wind-down could potentially occur, though the US has strategic realities Canada lacks, like a navigable waterway in the Heartland).

It's quite unfortunate, too- one notes that there were no separatist calls in 2022 even when the West came to Ottawa to protest; all were waving Canadian flags. There is an identity here, it's just that for it to be real, it needs to involve all of Canada- right now, the rallying point is Orange Man Bad, but when Orange Man leaves office and the policies continue on track (because it makes solid strategic sense for the US to do this, and it'll get worse under a Blue administration because [unlike Reds] they won't give a damn about what's good for the Midwest), what happens then?

Most Canadians are assuming this isn't the new normal. I disrespectfully disagree.

Alternatively I'd love to read a write-up (past or future) by you on it.

I'm sure I'll eventually end up doing this provided my meds hold out, but I'm really not sure what else I'd actually say other than "Canada is not a political monolith, everyone who has to pay for this hates this, why does Trump care more about future Canadian economic viability than Canadians themselves do?".

(Then again, I was a fan of him the first time; that was before I met someone that established further evidence that how he functions is typical for people of his type and somehow manages to inspire leadership. I don't know why that happens, I just know that the effect is real.)

Very interesting, thank you! If you do a write-up, feel free to tag me.

This is basically the exact same deal Denmark signed in 1951. It's nothing new.

One wonders what the implications for the other Arctic-holding State to the US' immediate north is, as this agreement inherently (and formally) threatens all Canadian trade capacity with non-US countries.

I'm not seeing it -- can you expand?

It does put us at risk of having to fight a liquor war on two fronts though -- not quite a land-war-in-Asia level blunder, but I'm not sure I like the vibe...

I'm mostly thinking of the GIUK gap here (though to be fair that's a bit far north to be particularly concerned about a new vector for submarine warfare, rather than the one that already existed) and of the Northwest Passage; now the US formally controls both entrance and exit from any Atlantic port, real or imagined (re: Churchill).

So at that point it really wouldn't matter what policy we set; the US can just override it- not that they couldn't do that before, it's just more blatant now that they (more or less) have actual territory there that isn't able to be meaningfully contested by either Russia or China (yes, Alaska exists, but the naval bases there are in missile range; Greenland, not so much).

Maximum trolling would have been Canada striking a military protection deal with Greenland first (it's not like they're not already using our small arms) but to be honest Denmark probably has the more capable military already.

I'm mostly thinking of the GIUK gap here

How important is the GIUK gap these days, given how good/quiet modern submarines are?

I think the quietness of modern submarines makes the GIUK gap more important. With a quiet submarine in, say, the middle of the Pacific or the Atlantic, it could be anywhere and finding it could be tricky. The GIUK gap is (from what I understand) a bit more shallow than the middle of the ocean and it is a much more finite space. If you can carefully observe it you can pick up submarines and try to track them before it becomes a needle-in-a-haystack race.

If there's anything that makes GIUK less important it would be US technological developments making it easier to find submarines in the middle of nowhere. And some of the Cold War SOSUS intelligence suggest US capabilities can be scary in this regard. But I am not sure how reliable that is (there are a lot of technologies that are amazing in ideal conditions and quickly turn to mash if you look at them the wrong way) or how much more recent quieting measures have eaten into it.

Yeah, what’s up with Carney? It’s a bit right? I have a hard time believing he’s some kind of Canadian patriot given how he had UK and Irish citizenship until last year and he has lived, worked, and vacationed in the US extensively.

It’s a good bit though. Reducing immigration and lowering taxes to own Trump is a nice touch.

What’s up with Carney? It’s a good bit though.

Nominative determinism.

It's permanent, the US can expand with Denmark's permission, and they can deny foreign expansion without Denmark's say so.

Was Denmark, in practice, ever going to allow "foreign expansion" in Greenland? I get that the MAGA narrative is how Denmark is an Islamist communist shithole and deeply infiltrated by the CCP (probably way less infiltrated than Washington DC), but if memory serves, they always permitted the US to treat Greenland as its exclusive military outpost.

No this is not the US narrative on Denmark at all. To the extent that there is a narrative it’s that Denmark is a uniquely competent and capable socialist country (left view) or that they are surprisingly based on immigration (right view).

Of all the countries in Western Europe, Denmark is among the most successful. But you know which country is absolutely fucked? Belgium. Seriously look at their demographics. They are done. Something might be salvaged by Flemish independence but I wouldn’t get my hopes up. Belgium also happens to contain the capital of the EU and of NATO. Conditioning US military dominance on NATO might not be a winning move long term as weaker countries get picked off by Islamic immigration, reliance on Chinese imports, and energy poverty.

It's unclear exactly what the US gave up in order to get these concessions

I'm betting it's a nothingburger and just a way for trump to decalre victory while greenland gives up nothing of value.

Unless Trump's post is straight up wrong, it seems that we already know what the US received, which is not insignificant.

I'm asking what they gave Denmark in exchange.

But you are right that Denmark/Greenland did not give up anything tangible, only veto power. US control of the island is good for them and Chinese investments would ultimately be counterproductive. It's a win win.

Unless Trump's post is straight up wrong

This is so incredibly common that it would be reasonable to just automatically assume there is something misrepresented. All the trade deals that just turn out to be preliminary frameworks, the peace deals that never come to fruition, the investments that never get spent.

Yeah there is no foreseeable world where Denmark gains by having Russia or China on Greenland (which are the only powers that matter here, unless someone goes to the paradox console and spawns Jan Mayen), and now Trump is happy with them. Neither side concedes anything, nothing substantive changes, mutual diplomatic win.

Greenland has some degree of self-government. The native communist eskimos might invite Russia or China in just out of fit of pique, or in a corrupt bargain.

The Eskimos are alcoholic welfare scroungers, not communists(there are multiple reasons to vote for far left parties, and this is by far the most common), and US investment can pump more than enough money into the country to pay for welfare- without making them follow the Marine Mammal Protection act.

The native communist eskimos might invite Russia or China in just out of fit of pique, or in a corrupt bargain.

Yeah, but I thought we were discussing Greenland.

Well, the Eskimos aren't really ideological communists, just welfare scroungers, so the US can both outbid and out-threaten any competing offer, sort of like this.

Fully agreed. I still wonder why Denmark would say yes.

Consider, for example, Canada. Their leader just goes around saying anti-Trump stuff and then gets to rule like a king because that's the only thing anyone cares about. Seems like a formula that would work almost anywhere.

then gets to rule like a king

What does this mean? Carney is the PM and the leader of the Liberal Party. Like, no shit he's setting policy.

He says Trump stuff and then no one questions his policies. It’s a luxury few enjoy.

What point are you trying to make? It's surely not just "Mark Carney is popular with Canadian voters for standing up to Trump." If the question is "why would Denmark makes concessions when Canada wouldn't?" it's pretty straightforwardly because this is basically a reiteration of the status quo whereas Trump is trying to economically ratfuck Canada.

then no one questions his policies. It’s a luxury few enjoy.

Who is "no one"? If Carney didn't have the confidence of his party, he wouldn't be PM, the same as the PM in pretty much any parliamentary system.

He's pushing policies that would normally be radioactive, but because he's loudly Anti-Orange Bad Man, everyone falls in line. Not sure how you're not getting that.

More comments

Two reasons: one, Europe is currently really worried about the possibility of Russian escalation into asymmetric attacks outside of Ukraine, and the Scandis very much want the US to have Europe's back right this minute. Two, Europe is not Canada. Unlike Canada, Denmark is a country that has its own identity and its own domestic political considerations that don't revolve around the US - including an almost unique political synthesis which is willing to compromise with the Right on e.g. immigration in order to protect Danish neoliberal social democracy. These domestic political considerations vary (for instance, I don't think that Sweden would have made the same decision, they're more divided and less competent than the Danes, and any country closer to Russia would have rolled over far sooner, if they'd somehow happened to own Greenland), but this makes sense in the particular context of Denmark.

I'm not really following the "real" vs not real distinction between countries in this thread, but Denmark, with a population of 6 million people and tiny landmass, would not really be my pick for a country that is more real than Canada (40 million people and huge landmass).

Being next to a much bigger and more powerful country like the US makes you not real? Or is it generally having military interests aligned with your powerful neighbor what makes you not real? Is Belgium, surely a very non-real country, more or less real than Canada or Denmark?

It's having a grounded and coherent identity as a nation which animates the state. It's not to do with size exactly (Iceland, for instance, is one of the "realest" countries in the West). Having that sort of self-grounded nature is generally very hard when you're in a position like Canada's - the real issue is cultural proximity to a much bigger and more influential nation, such that your culture is constantly bobbing around like a rowboat in the wake of a supertanker. Compare for instance Belarus, or the old tributaries of the Middle Kingdom. Where there is a "real Canada" among Anglophones that is distinctly Canadian, it's in the run-down Maritimes, the rural prairie, places which are sheltered from America's impact, either as an object of emulation or as a Big Other to which one defines oneself by opposition. Belgium is a good example that actually, I think, illustrates the point. Belgium is not a real country because it has no coherent identity, divided as it is along linguistic lines which also represent internal national and economic divides (the parallel to Canada should be obvious), and having developed its state while torn between the influence of four different larger powers. Denmark, and Danishness, on the other hand, go back over a thousand years with a basic internal understanding of its own continuity to the present day, with the intangible self-possession that entails.

Where there is a "real Canada" among Anglophones that is distinctly Canadian, it's in the run-down Maritimes, the rural prairie, places which are sheltered from America's impact

I don't think it's so much America's impact as that TPTB have been actively trying to kill it for about 30 years -- Vancouver had a Canadian identity as lately as the 90s, and while it was still pretty self-centred I'd even give it to Toronto in the 80s.

It's something I've noticed a lot in the Trump discourse here lately -- if you substitute the "America" in all the unhinged things people are saying about Trump with "Ottawa", you will have accurately described the situation in vast swathes of the nation since about Y2K. Like, uh "We will not be reduced to a mere vassal paying tribute!" kind of rings differently in Alberta, y'know?

More comments

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