4 ms·

I get that this is posted to show that the "Art of the deal" has produced little novelties in the recent US-Denmark agreement: https://www.bbc.com/news/article

by 21921276 7d ago

I get that this is posted to show that the "Art of the deal" has produced little novelties in the recent US-Denmark agreement: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o It does have the novelty that even under independence the US will continue to operate the bases. I'm not sure if Denmark thinks this is a poison pill for any independence movement. The Golden Dome bases in Greenland are such a stupid pretext: 1) Russia has the Sarmat missile that flies over the South Pole and completely evades all northern installations. 2) Russia has the Poseidon nuclear torpedo that threatens the vast coastal areas of the US and is immune all that as well.

everyone 7d ago
Also Trump seems to be allied with Russia. They got him elected and paid for his son's wedding and so on. He withdrew all support for Ukraine, and has put tariffs on practically every country except Russia. He has consistently pressured Ukraine to surrender and repeated Russian propoganda verbatim. He saved Putin a loss of face by pressuring Ukraine not to strike the last victory day parade. Even before he was president he handed Russia one of their biggest military victories by having maga follower Mike Pence block military aid to Ukraine for 6 months just after their offensive had culminated.
- noir_lord 7d ago
  It's unfortunate you are getting down voted for pointing out pretty much what has happened. Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were. The people debating whether he's compromised are missing the point, if he's not then there is the much more interesting question of then why has his foreign policy been to their benefit?.
  - ericmay 7d ago
    > Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were. If it’s immaterial there’s no reason to bring it up. But while Trump hasn’t been as hawkish on Russia as I’d like him to be, I’m not entirely sure that “much of what he does” - whatever that is - is to the benefit of Russia. Signing the Lindsey Graham bill isn’t for the benefit of Russia. Nor was stopping shadowfleet tankers from Venezuela and Iran.
    - 301927-1927 7d ago
      I agree with this. There was historical evidence like Trump traveling to Russia in the 1980s and buying a huge, very expensive anti-NATO ad in a newspaper after he returned. Then, like Epstein, he had many Russian contacts who sometimes "overpaid" for some of his real estate. But overall: He was always against Russia's "friend" Iran, delivered Javelins to Ukraine during his first term. He cancelled the INF treaty. The "row" with Zelensky in the White House was theater. In the full footage Trump winks at Zelesnky before kicking him out and Zelensky smiles and puts a thumb up. Ukraine support is by no means halted. The EU is forced to pay more for the US proxy war, but the US still plans and decides. Then he attacked Iran, Russia's ally. So watch what he does and not what he says. You could also say that his Russia friendliness was a cover for the real plans.
      - everyone 7d ago
        Ok, if its 4d chess then: Causing prolonged chaos in the middle-east, spiking oil prices to historical highs. Just when Russia (a petro state) desperately needed and economic shot in the arm.
        ericmay 7d ago
        Maybe it's not 4d chess and instead it's just regular chess and doing things like taking on Iran is just unfortunately something we have to do. > Just when Russia (a petro state) desperately needed and economic shot in the arm. Like when you say things like this it doesn't make any sense. Trump stopped Venezuelan support of shadow fleet tankers, he has increased sanctions on Russia, and you can certainly argue if you want that the Iran was isn't going according to Trump's plans (which is ego of course has a substantial impact) but Iran was providing military support to Russia and also helping them evade sanctions. So can you please point to the exact mechanism you are referring to that's giving Russia an economic shot in the arm? Because from what I can tell Russia isn't receiving any economic shots in the arm and instead is facing increased sanctions and better enforcement of those sanctions.
- gedy 7d ago
  I don't disagree with your details, but I am really not sure why the alternatives (Obama, Clinton, Biden) were somehow seen as tougher on Russia? All the invasions from Crimea in 2014, and 2023 were not under Trump administrations and the response from the US then was not effective at all.
  - toyg 7d ago
    It's debatable: funding and supporting a proxy since 2023 was a pretty effective way to keep Russia into a quagmire for years, seriously affecting their military, draining their finances, and isolating their economy - to the point that any non-military activity outside of the country has basically disappeared. Short of direct engagement, which is unfeasible due to MAD, it basically was the strongest response. (2014 is different, in the sense that it was always going to happen if Ukraine ever managed to escape Russian orbit, and more or less everyone knew.)
nonethewiser 7d ago
Also, the previous deal didn’t let the U.S. expand its military presence without Denmark approval. And it was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty. The new deal is permanent. I dont know why people think this isnt more permissive for the US.
- silvestrov 7d ago
  Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. At one point the US had 17 small bases in Greenland. Almost all have been abandoned by the USA on its own initiative. Look at this map: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-Greenland-during-WWII-the-air-base-of-our-interest-is-circled_fig1_373652483 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-G... Today there is only the small Thule/Pituffik base. The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
  - nonethewiser 7d ago
    >Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. Sure there is a difference. The old agreement required Danish agreement for new defense areas. They forfeited that control. Its like saying an API requiring authorization is the same as one not requiring authorization if historically there were no unauthorized requests.
  - ericmay 7d ago
    > Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. But Denmark could deny access. Formal agreements are important. You generally don’t leave this stuff up to chance or ambiguity if you don’t have to. > The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites. I’m confused by this. What good do satellites do? So you can watch an enemy armada sail by? There is more importance especially if/when these northern sea routes begin to have interdiction and further early warning systems available. I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
    - 3eb7988a1663 7d ago
deleted 7d ago
[deleted]
nine_k 7d ago
Notice how in the current war in Europe Russia is not using ICBMs or nuclear torpedoes, and the bulk of the damage is dealt by vast numbers of small, cheap, subsonic drones, and a few medium-range missiles (some made by North Korea, of all places). Losing the ability to watch and intercept "obsolete" weapons is quite risky. In 1960s, some cool newest-generation supersonic jet fighters got rid of cannons, because rockets felt so much more efficient. Using them in actual warfare quickly showed that rockets are not perfect, and expensive; you can run out of them, and become helpless.
chvid 7d ago
In Danish media the new deal is widely being presented as a huge diplomatic victory for Denmark.
- ericmay 7d ago
  What did the US give up in the deal from its side?
  - chvid 7d ago
    In the sense that it is for practical purposes the same deal as before. Also Denmark does not want to go to war with the US - something that was considered a real scenario just a few months back when the Danes moved an unusual large military force to the island.
    - ericmay 7d ago
      So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that Denmark should be celebrating the deal as a big win then does it? The US has gained, however much you belittle those gains, and Denmark gained what?
      - chvid 7d ago
        The US under Trump is seen a bit like a good strong friend who has gotten way too much to drink and wants to pick fights with everybody - giving him a symbolic win to avoid embarrassment is the right to do. Anyways that’s the sentiment - you can look at dr.dk and similar via google translate if you want.
        ericmay 7d ago
        Got it yea so in the US our sentiment is a bit different. Denmark and the EU are kind of like that great friend who is always bumming a ride off of you and you've been saying hey look you're my best friend but I just can't keep going out of my way to pick you up. You've got a car, stop spending all your money partying and put gas in it and drive yourself and you keep picking them up and then you tell them I'm going to stop on this date you better have a ride. And then when you stop they're really mad at you because they think they're entitled to your car and you picking them up. Same thing with Greenland. Sometimes you've got to force the issue and it makes your friend mad and they go around calling all their other friends and trying to hang out and bum rides, only to realize that you were right all along and they have to get their act together.
closingreunion 7d ago
I think it's worth mentioning that both Denmark and Greenland likely would have welcomed more US military presence in the pre-Trump era. The large and growing opposition to US presence in Greenland has largely grown out of the repeated explicit threats of military invasion and annexation, instead of just asking nicely. The scary thing is how many Americans find these fascist optics and bullying tactics appealing and a display of "strength".

everyone 7d ago

Also Trump seems to be allied with Russia. They got him elected and paid for his son's wedding and so on. He withdrew all support for Ukraine, and has put tariffs on practically every country except Russia. He has consistently pressured Ukraine to surrender and repeated Russian propoganda verbatim. He saved Putin a loss of face by pressuring Ukraine not to strike the last victory day parade. Even before he was president he handed Russia one of their biggest military victories by having maga follower Mike Pence block military aid to Ukraine for 6 months just after their offensive had culminated.

noir_lord 7d ago
It's unfortunate you are getting down voted for pointing out pretty much what has happened. Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were. The people debating whether he's compromised are missing the point, if he's not then there is the much more interesting question of then why has his foreign policy been to their benefit?.
- ericmay 7d ago
  > Whether Trump is or isn't allied with Russia is immaterial if much of what he does is exactly the same as what he would do if he were. If it’s immaterial there’s no reason to bring it up. But while Trump hasn’t been as hawkish on Russia as I’d like him to be, I’m not entirely sure that “much of what he does” - whatever that is - is to the benefit of Russia. Signing the Lindsey Graham bill isn’t for the benefit of Russia. Nor was stopping shadowfleet tankers from Venezuela and Iran.
  - 301927-1927 7d ago
    I agree with this. There was historical evidence like Trump traveling to Russia in the 1980s and buying a huge, very expensive anti-NATO ad in a newspaper after he returned. Then, like Epstein, he had many Russian contacts who sometimes "overpaid" for some of his real estate. But overall: He was always against Russia's "friend" Iran, delivered Javelins to Ukraine during his first term. He cancelled the INF treaty. The "row" with Zelensky in the White House was theater. In the full footage Trump winks at Zelesnky before kicking him out and Zelensky smiles and puts a thumb up. Ukraine support is by no means halted. The EU is forced to pay more for the US proxy war, but the US still plans and decides. Then he attacked Iran, Russia's ally. So watch what he does and not what he says. You could also say that his Russia friendliness was a cover for the real plans.
    - everyone 7d ago
      Ok, if its 4d chess then: Causing prolonged chaos in the middle-east, spiking oil prices to historical highs. Just when Russia (a petro state) desperately needed and economic shot in the arm.
      - ericmay 7d ago
        Maybe it's not 4d chess and instead it's just regular chess and doing things like taking on Iran is just unfortunately something we have to do. > Just when Russia (a petro state) desperately needed and economic shot in the arm. Like when you say things like this it doesn't make any sense. Trump stopped Venezuelan support of shadow fleet tankers, he has increased sanctions on Russia, and you can certainly argue if you want that the Iran was isn't going according to Trump's plans (which is ego of course has a substantial impact) but Iran was providing military support to Russia and also helping them evade sanctions. So can you please point to the exact mechanism you are referring to that's giving Russia an economic shot in the arm? Because from what I can tell Russia isn't receiving any economic shots in the arm and instead is facing increased sanctions and better enforcement of those sanctions.
gedy 7d ago
I don't disagree with your details, but I am really not sure why the alternatives (Obama, Clinton, Biden) were somehow seen as tougher on Russia? All the invasions from Crimea in 2014, and 2023 were not under Trump administrations and the response from the US then was not effective at all.
- toyg 7d ago
  It's debatable: funding and supporting a proxy since 2023 was a pretty effective way to keep Russia into a quagmire for years, seriously affecting their military, draining their finances, and isolating their economy - to the point that any non-military activity outside of the country has basically disappeared. Short of direct engagement, which is unfeasible due to MAD, it basically was the strongest response. (2014 is different, in the sense that it was always going to happen if Ukraine ever managed to escape Russian orbit, and more or less everyone knew.)

nonethewiser 7d ago

Also, the previous deal didn’t let the U.S. expand its military presence without Denmark approval. And it was contingent on the North Atlantic Treaty. The new deal is permanent. I dont know why people think this isnt more permissive for the US.

silvestrov 7d ago
Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. At one point the US had 17 small bases in Greenland. Almost all have been abandoned by the USA on its own initiative. Look at this map: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-Greenland-during-WWII-the-air-base-of-our-interest-is-circled_fig1_373652483 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Former-US-air-bases-in-G... Today there is only the small Thule/Pituffik base. The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites.
- nonethewiser 7d ago
  >Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. Sure there is a difference. The old agreement required Danish agreement for new defense areas. They forfeited that control. Its like saying an API requiring authorization is the same as one not requiring authorization if historically there were no unauthorized requests.
- ericmay 7d ago
  > Denmark never denied an approval, so it has no meaningful difference. But Denmark could deny access. Formal agreements are important. You generally don’t leave this stuff up to chance or ambiguity if you don’t have to. > The US has closed the bases because they make no sense with modern military and satellites. I’m confused by this. What good do satellites do? So you can watch an enemy armada sail by? There is more importance especially if/when these northern sea routes begin to have interdiction and further early warning systems available. I think the military knows why it needs this stuff.
  - 3eb7988a1663 7d ago

deleted 7d ago

[deleted]

nine_k 7d ago

Notice how in the current war in Europe Russia is not using ICBMs or nuclear torpedoes, and the bulk of the damage is dealt by vast numbers of small, cheap, subsonic drones, and a few medium-range missiles (some made by North Korea, of all places). Losing the ability to watch and intercept "obsolete" weapons is quite risky. In 1960s, some cool newest-generation supersonic jet fighters got rid of cannons, because rockets felt so much more efficient. Using them in actual warfare quickly showed that rockets are not perfect, and expensive; you can run out of them, and become helpless.

chvid 7d ago

In Danish media the new deal is widely being presented as a huge diplomatic victory for Denmark.

ericmay 7d ago
What did the US give up in the deal from its side?
- chvid 7d ago
  In the sense that it is for practical purposes the same deal as before. Also Denmark does not want to go to war with the US - something that was considered a real scenario just a few months back when the Danes moved an unusual large military force to the island.
  - ericmay 7d ago
    So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that Denmark should be celebrating the deal as a big win then does it? The US has gained, however much you belittle those gains, and Denmark gained what?
    - chvid 7d ago
      The US under Trump is seen a bit like a good strong friend who has gotten way too much to drink and wants to pick fights with everybody - giving him a symbolic win to avoid embarrassment is the right to do. Anyways that’s the sentiment - you can look at dr.dk and similar via google translate if you want.
      - ericmay 7d ago
        Got it yea so in the US our sentiment is a bit different. Denmark and the EU are kind of like that great friend who is always bumming a ride off of you and you've been saying hey look you're my best friend but I just can't keep going out of my way to pick you up. You've got a car, stop spending all your money partying and put gas in it and drive yourself and you keep picking them up and then you tell them I'm going to stop on this date you better have a ride. And then when you stop they're really mad at you because they think they're entitled to your car and you picking them up. Same thing with Greenland. Sometimes you've got to force the issue and it makes your friend mad and they go around calling all their other friends and trying to hang out and bum rides, only to realize that you were right all along and they have to get their act together.

closingreunion 7d ago

I think it's worth mentioning that both Denmark and Greenland likely would have welcomed more US military presence in the pre-Trump era. The large and growing opposition to US presence in Greenland has largely grown out of the repeated explicit threats of military invasion and annexation, instead of just asking nicely. The scary thing is how many Americans find these fascist optics and bullying tactics appealing and a display of "strength".