- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/world/p/1191953/us-to-build-two-military-bases-in-greenland-under-new-deal-with-denmark
The defence deal signed at the UN General Assembly also re-affirms Denmark’s sovereignty over its semi-autonomous Arctic territory.
If the reason they have to invade is so that they can build military bases, they no longer have reason to invade.
The reason was not to build military bases
but that’s what they said!!!
And yet, no invasion, but rather a formal acknowledgement of the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark.
At least so far. I guess we’ll see if it holds.
Ah yes, Donald Trump and the US government, both historically known for not violating agreements and keeping to boundaries.
Indeed. The main victory is less the document and more the fact that there’s been no invasion, and that there likely won’t be any further threats of invasion for a while, leaving the Inuit and Denmark to pursue real political issues instead of preparing a defense.
installs military base totally not an invasion guys don’t worry.
If anything these people now have to make more of a defense because the people who threatened to invade them are building military bases on their land.
I would agree in an absence of historical and military context.
But they
Yes, if this was a Civ game, your logic might apply. But the real situation is more nuanced.
Immense military superiority is kinda moot if only 1% of the ships can cross the ice, most of the helicopters fail, and most of the soldiers get frostbite.
I’m not saying that it would be easy for Denmark and allies, but I’m not sure it would be easy for the US either.
And why would you ever think that? We’re installing military bases there, dude. The entire point is future threats of invasion.
The US already has a base and dominant military presence on the island. They have been allowed to establish new bases since 1951. Their military presence since WW2 has clearly not been about preparing an invasion.
If the reason to invade was to build more military bases to cover the Arctic, they now have that with no reason to invade.
If there is another reason to invade, the difference between
is not that great.
Finally, if the point of the bases is to make an invasion easier, the invasion likely won’t happen until the bases are finished, giving peace and possibly a regime change in the meantime.
Goddamn it 2 minutes in to browsing and already I see the dumbest thing I’ll see all day.
Harsh. Why is it so dumb?
Because 1. You’re avoiding the bad thing maybe forcefully happening by guaranteed allowing it to happen and 2. You are inviting bad things to happen again because you have shown you will allow it.
Oh, an invasion would be so, so much worse than two more military bases. Dead soldiers, broken alliances, the future of the Inuit people lost.
The establishment of US bases in Greenland has been expressly allowed since 1951. This is nothing new. Threats and grandstanding have achieved nothing which couldn’t have been achieved easier and with better publicity through collaboration.
I can’t really explain with logic what is being misunderstood due to naivety.
Isn’t naivety the block to understanding that’s MOST receptive to being resolved by new information?
Don’t give up before you’ve even tried!
I’m perfect able to follow a logical argument, but I may indeed not be able to see what you consider obvious until you point it out.
I think you’re fucking with me playing dumb.
There’s no way you don’t understand, even if you don’t agree.
But if you aren’t…would you let foreign war equipment into your country from a country that had threatened to take you by force?
Obviously not.
Greenland is done unless MAGA is stopped, full stop.
Edit: I disagree with your premise that they could have gotten the same results without the threats, therefore this must be benign. At least that’s what I think you’re saying.
I’m not. I’ve followed the US in Greenland with interest for a long time, and read the analyses of the recent deal. I don’t think my position is dumb. The US have been flirting with the annexation of Greenland since WW2, and Danish diplomatic counter strategy has always been to allow the US unfettered military access in return for acknowledging that Greenland is part of the Danish kingdom and will remain so. Trump has messed with this relationship, but it is now more or less normalized (for now). This is the best Denmark could’ve hoped for, realistically.
There was already plenty there. And Denmark couldn’t defend Greenland if the US invaded, doesn’t matter if there is one or three military bases there.
Denmark has been bending backwards for decades to serve as loyal vassals to the US. They joined their illegitimate wars without question. If the US asked for two more bases and whatever else is in the agreement, they would have gotten it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Edit: Of particular relevance:
Appeasement can be seen as promoting frozen conflicts and rewarding aggression from a game-theoretical point of view.[134] If the defensive player is willing to appease, the offensive player is incentivised to create the conditions to be appeased by their opponent.
I am familiar with the concept. What’s the point you’re trying to make, exactly? How does it fit into the context I laid out above?
I could try to guess your implied point, but I don’t think that’s useful for the conversation.
No, the reason to invade is to pilfer natural resources.
The military bases are a means to that end.
Why not just invade and pilfer, then? What difference will two additional military bases do in terms of minerals? The US already has a dominant military presence on the island and has vast military superiority over Denmark.
The Americans already have at least one base there.
I think the Europeans are hoping that incompetence and corruptipn in the leadership, combined with the sheer cost or a cold weather base, will lead to systematic failures in building and operating new bases.