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.
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.