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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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-boatssubmarines, 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.
This is basically the exact same deal Denmark signed in 1951. It's nothing new.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
How important is the GIUK gap these days, given how good/quiet modern submarines are?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Nominative determinism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Yeah, but I thought we were discussing Greenland.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link