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 -
The Greenland Deal has been signed and its full text has been released. As expected, it is mostly concerned with military matters. Some highlights:
Overall, it seems pretty decent and exactly what the U.S. will need to maintain strength as the Arctic becomes increasingly relevant as a missile route from Russia/China. I took a quick look at the prior agreements between America and Denmark w/r/t Greenland, and this does appear to be a meaningful improvement. Prior agreements designated Pituffik (then called Thule) as the only permissible American presence on the island. This 2026 agreement is the first to stipulate the creation of new bases and offer a path for continued expansion. It also strikes me as much warmer in tone. Prior agreements had all sorts of trepidatious language, whereas this one is far more amenable to the idea of a U.S. military presence. While I'm not one to cheer for wanton expansion of the military, this does seem to be a strategic boon, and something Trump can rightfully praise.
Considering the past discussion thread on the topic, I thought it would be fun to go over the main points of contention and see how they match what was signed.
First off:
Is this just the 1951 deal but with a Trump signature?
A lot of people (me included) speculated that this would be a nothingburger of a deal to give Trump the appearance of a win and thus hopefully bury this entire debacle. This is not quite the case. While many details remain the same, the new agreement does give America rights, including military rights, that did not exist before. I don't know that I would necessarily call these concessions, but it is clear that America did actually manage to get some of their wishes fulfilled here.
But as many suspected, Trump was greatly exaggerating in his tweet.
Does the deal actually give the US the right to veto foreign investments into Greenland?
This is not the case. From the agreement:
So in practice we are targeting specifically Chinese investments, while EU and NATO countries have all the same opportunities they did before. So the Veto is at best limited in scope. The historical allies can do as they please. Furthermore, the duty to enforce this falls on Denmark and Greenland:
Whether this benefits the US more than Denmark (outsourcing costs vs direct control) is up for debate.
What did Denmark gain from this?
A sigh of relief. The US has confirmed that they view Denmark and Greenland as sovereign entities with a right to self determination. And this deal implies a stop to American aggression. But for Denmark, this is just a return to the pre-threaths status quo, likely with some lingering uncertainty of "what will he do next?". The real winner here is Greenland. The fact that they got to sit at the table, and the deal takes potential Greenlandic independence into account, signals that all parties view them as a legitimate third party. A show of respect that was not present in the 1951 agreement.
So did Trump win? Did the Dealmaker in Chief manage to use his negotiating skills in a way that benefits America?
On the surface, yes. Trump successfully strongarmed Denmark and Greenland into signing an agreement which benefited the US without needing to give up anything in return. Big win, MAGA's rejoice.
However, the actual changes to the status quo are pretty small, and most (possibly all) of what the US wanted (no Chinese investments and greater military presence) could have been achieved without the threats and hostile statements. The previous agreement already gave them the right to build bases and man them, Denmark was fighting against Chinese investments, and more importantly highly values their relationship with the US. Overall, the White House could have likely achieved their goals here by simply asking nicely. Instead, Trump went in hard. Antagonizing long time allies and implying that he would take by force what he could not get through negotiations. In other words, while nothing material was lost Trump sacrificed soft power and goodwill to achieve marginal gains that could have been reached through more diplomatic means. If this was really important, America could have started to rebuild and man bases there as soon as Trump came in to power, without directly antagonizing anyone.
My takeaway
I don't think anyone won here. Yes, in isolation this deal is good for the US and bad for Denmark. However, the process of getting there has involved alienating long time allies and losing a lot of goodwill that Europeans had for America. Considering that the gains are fairly marginal (the 1951 deal already massively favored American interests) this does not seem worth it. But as far as I can tell this type of deal is emblematic of Trump's negotiating style. He clearly believes that if someone else is hurting, he is winning. You see this with the invasion of Iran and the aggressive tariffs he placed on American trade partners. Whether he could achieve his goals without harming others in the process, or whether there are long term costs that might outweigh the gains, just does not factor into the calculations.
I hope that this deal marks a focus away from Greenland. And I suspect that we will see more situations like this, where Trump starts a process in which both America and the other party ends up worse for the wear, several times more during the remaining two years of his reign.
I agree with the entirety of your comment, except for the idea that this deal is bad for Denmark. I suppose they might not like the fact that the U.S. has a significant presence in territory that is theirs, but I think the writing is on the wall that Greenland wants to go independent soon. Territorial claims notwithstanding, I think the Danes know that Greenland won't be theirs for much longer. If anything, Greenland is an economic sink that has become a liability, and if the U.S. wants to spend money on infrastructure and development, that saves Denmark lots of money. Plus, while Trump's thrashing has reputational effects on America at the moment, this deal will presumably persist long after his presidency ends.
Greenland would like to go independent but if they do there's no way to fund all that welfare, so they probably aren't going to do it.
Forget about money, they don't even have the manpower. With a population of around 60000, a large proportion of which are alcoholics, they have neither the numbers nor the skills required to maintain a functional modern society.
Your second link is a duplicate of your first link.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This reminds me of other performative independence movements. The Scots for instance. They want to 'be independent', but don't want to pay for themselves so they make a lot of noise and predictably do nothing.
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