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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe we're both nuts, but this would tie in with the recent statement that the US has deployed space weapons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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?
More options
Context Copy link
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Pretty clearly an AI response.
Pretty clearly an AI comment.
More options
Context Copy link
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not sovereignty; suzerainity.
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)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link