I've always thought that Plato's arguments by analogy are tosh. But it never occurred to me that they could be censored for not being sufficiently fascist.
The second point looks implausible, given that he walked round her car and stood in front of it. But it would be a tiny lie compared with all the others.
he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus.
I wonder if I could win a sucker bet here. I'd bet most** of those exercised by Plato have never actually read any of it. Beyond, perhaps, whatever quotes out of context an AI might include in response to a query about possible "woke" material in the college curriculum. Any takers?
** Actually, if any have I would be surprised. But there are always a few college students who, for whatever reason, have had occasion to read with utter incomprehension.
JD Vance is supporting some dangerous and fucked up shit. He's saying that federal agents have "absolute immunity" in pursuit of their orders, and he's also claiming that we should have sympathy for the officer who executed Good because that officer had been injured in a previous action where he was drug along by a moving car.
If the second point is true, then that officer had no business being cleared for duty like this because he is clearly psychologically unsuited for his job.
And if the first point is allowed to stand and be put into practice...
I don't know whether it's utter spinelessness or extreme political correctness on the part of those 4 NYT reporters that prevented any of them from asking: "Mr. President, are you saying l'etat c'est moi?" Not that I think He, Trump would understand that question, of course.
The US press corps seems to be composed exclusively of invertebrates. My impression is that British reporters, once upon a time at least, might have asked "Mr. President, are you nuts, or what?" But for all I know even they are too politically correct, nowadays.
* When university philosophy professors are told to avoid Plato, academic freedom is losing: “Martin Peterson, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M University, was thunderstruck when he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus. It was one way, his department head wrote in an email, that Dr. Peterson’s philosophy class could comply with new policies limiting discussion of race and gender.”
Would be new to me that Plato was a liberal. But of course the Allegory of the Cave could be (mis-)interpreted as woke.And in the same book he contemplated equal rights for the women of the ruling class. On the other hand his idea of "Unable to work for three days? You should commit suicide in order not to be a burden on society!" would fit well with RW economics.
President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
I've heard war historians refer to WWI and WWII as "The Second Thirty Years War," and while the postwar period did mark the start of the effort to create international agreements governed by consensus and law, it also marked the beginnings of hyperglobalism, and soon after of networked societies. Some historians mark those last two developments as the beginning of the end for the Westphalian Peace that was instituted as a system in the first Thirty Years War.
(I did think a bit while writing my earlier post if I should describe Trump's worldview as 19th C. or 17th. C. for this very reason.)
"Worth noting that a single US Wasp-class amphibious assault ship..."
I don't think the question on the table is whether the US could prevail in a military takeover of Greenland.
As Stephen Miller notes, rule by brute force and hegemonic domination by the strong has been the way things worked since the beginning of time. Among other things, this led to several centuries of almost continuous warfare in Europe and elsewhere, culminating in the two world wars of the 20th C.
After WWII we - "we" being most nations on the planet - attempted to establish a regime under which we would do things differently. It was imperfect and imperfectly successful. But we've had about 80 years of sort-of peace, at least relative to historical standards. In general, and with the exception of the Soviet Union, we haven't had a lot of wars that were based on "we want your stuff, we're bigger than you, so we're taking it".
Which has been a pretty good thing.
Trump is ripping that up.
I'm pretty sure that, were he to stop threatening to take Greenland by force of arms, folks there would be happy to discuss our security needs and accommodate them to a sufficient degree.
Trump is incapable of dealing with counterparties other than by threats and attempts at domination. With, of course, the notable exception of Russia under Putin. Other nations are not obliged to accept that.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
They did not invite any US units to participate in the 2025 annual Greenland military exercise, just units from France and Germany. Total 550 personnel, two F-16s, one helicopter, one frigate. Write-ups on the exercise also emphasized the difficulties Denmark and France had getting two planes and one helicopter to Greenland.
Worth noting that a single US Wasp-class amphibious assault ship carries more Marines and much heavier weaponry than took part in the exercise. Standard compliment for an AAS is 1900 Marines with six F-35Bs, four attack helicopters, a dozen supply helicopters, three air-cushion landing craft, five tanks, eight howitzers, lots of trucks, plus fuel and ammunition. And a hospital. On the Navy side there's 1200 crew with anti-air and anti-ship missiles, multiple sorts of air and surface radar, and a long list of defensive stuff. The US has seven Wasp-class ships. Range is 9,500 nautical miles. The trip from their Atlantic Coast home port to Greenland and back is about half that.
Whether it's "sanewashing" or "Trumpologetics", bc's lawyerly brief argues that the interests of the United States require some sort of action on Greenland. In context, his brief implies that He, Trump's motivation for the bluster and the threats is to serve the interests of the United States. I refer him to Pro Bono's diagnosis of He, Trump's motivations for ... well, everything ... and beg leave to doubt that implication.
Alternatively, bc may be simply pointing out that He, Trump's sinister buffoonery might have the unintended consequence of promoting the interests of the United States, as bc perceives them. He, Trump as useful idiot, IOW. Whether more serious, more diplomatic, more discreet efforts, by a saner and less bombastic president would better serve whatever actual interests the United States has w.r.t. Greenland is a question only an anti-MAGAt would bother with.
Lawyers gonna lawyer, so watch this space when He, Trump actually declares Himself eligible for a 3rd term. Meanwhile, a non-lawyer like me can't resist pointing out that by His own proclamations He, Trump has already been elected president 3 times, so the 22nd Amendment is already moot.
The US has military bases on Greenland. Greenland wants to continue that practice, even if it were to become independent. They've specifically pointed to the Compacts of Free Association that the US has with the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. That would likely take care of any strategic concerns.
What Greenland does not want, and what it seems Trump does really want, is a 19th C. imperial resource extraction scheme. Trump's comments point entirely to him thinking like a real estate developer, treating the Greenlanders not as a sovereign people with a right of self-determination, but as tenants on a desirable piece of property that has extensive mineral rights.
All the strategic concerns are true, but none of them ring true as motivations for Trump. He wants his name in the history books as having expanded US territory and acquiring valuable mineral rights that can be exploited to allow the US to dominate the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Anything beyond that is too much detail for the hamster wheel in his head.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland? Other than by declining to hand over the whole island.
Maybe it’s prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up.
bc, can you really believe that Trump and his henchmen are capable of that level of sophistication? Because everything I've seen leads me to believe that they have only three modes:
Threat and bluster, to get exactly what they are demanding. With maybe the occasional demand to give an excuse for something else. E.g. demanding that Maduro resign to set up an excuse to seize Venezuelan oil. (See #2 below)
Straight up violence, to get what they want (with or without threats first)
If push back is hard (i.e. threatening) enough, pretend the threats never happened. TACO Because being seen to try (as opposed to merely demanding) and fail would be intolerable.
Counter examples of where he threatened, but merely as a wake up call, would be welcome.**
** Note that his threats over NATO members 2% were in pursuit of an excuse (per option 1) to, if not exit NATO altogether, drop any kind to commitment to live up to the treaty. (Yes, I know the treaty only requires consultations if a member is attacked. But I'd be astounded if Trump grasps that.) See option 1 above -- he could care less what they actually spend.
bc: a lot of people here said "he", and I had always tried before to say s/he, so it was a move against assumptions. Thank you for confirming.
“Danish longer than the United States has existed,” that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation. There is no possible current geopolitical reality which could require its military occupation.
Why is that not enough?
It is enough for security, so why is there still talk about the US "needing" Greenland? Could it be that the real reason is more to do with, for example, rare earths, and/or Trump's desire to be a POTUS who "acquired" a territory larger than Louisiana and Alaska?
You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are, it's hard to know what to say to you. And further to which, pretty much everyone I know and read agrees that the other NATO countries were far too slow to ramp up their funding, albeit they are doing so now.
If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don’t.
I don't, and I rather doubt anyone here does either. Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the "McKinney Trap" of assuming that the commentariat here are supporters of the CCP?
And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it.
I'm tempted to say "oh you sweet summer child". It's almost as if you haven't been observing the Trump administration in action, and not only in their foreign adventures. Is there any innocent explanation for their behaviour that you would consider meets the definition of "sane-washing", and how it enables normalisation of morally, legally and practically unwise and unacceptable behaviour?
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
Speaking of "f**ked up", the US has withdrawn from the UNFCCC
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/07/climate/trump-withdrawal-climate-treaty-international-agreements
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
"The second point looks implausible"
Actually, Ross (the officer who shot Good) had been dragged alongside a car during a previous attempr to arrest an alleged illegal immigrant.
He ended up in front of Good's car because he was walking around it while recording the incident.
This is not a guy who should be walking around with a badge and a gun.
On “An open thread”
Was it for not being sufficiently fascist? Or for not being sufficiently sexist? (Could be both, I suppose....)
"
I've always thought that Plato's arguments by analogy are tosh. But it never occurred to me that they could be censored for not being sufficiently fascist.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
The second point looks implausible, given that he walked round her car and stood in front of it. But it would be a tiny lie compared with all the others.
On “An open thread”
he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus.
I wonder if I could win a sucker bet here. I'd bet most** of those exercised by Plato have never actually read any of it. Beyond, perhaps, whatever quotes out of context an AI might include in response to a query about possible "woke" material in the college curriculum. Any takers?
** Actually, if any have I would be surprised. But there are always a few college students who, for whatever reason, have had occasion to read with utter incomprehension.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
JD Vance is supporting some dangerous and fucked up shit. He's saying that federal agents have "absolute immunity" in pursuit of their orders, and he's also claiming that we should have sympathy for the officer who executed Good because that officer had been injured in a previous action where he was drug along by a moving car.
If the second point is true, then that officer had no business being cleared for duty like this because he is clearly psychologically unsuited for his job.
And if the first point is allowed to stand and be put into practice...
"
I don't know whether it's utter spinelessness or extreme political correctness on the part of those 4 NYT reporters that prevented any of them from asking: "Mr. President, are you saying l'etat c'est moi?" Not that I think He, Trump would understand that question, of course.
The US press corps seems to be composed exclusively of invertebrates. My impression is that British reporters, once upon a time at least, might have asked "Mr. President, are you nuts, or what?" But for all I know even they are too politically correct, nowadays.
--TP
On “An open thread”
From maddowblog:
* When university philosophy professors are told to avoid Plato, academic freedom is losing: “Martin Peterson, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M University, was thunderstruck when he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus. It was one way, his department head wrote in an email, that Dr. Peterson’s philosophy class could comply with new policies limiting discussion of race and gender.”
Would be new to me that Plato was a liberal. But of course the Allegory of the Cave could be (mis-)interpreted as woke.And in the same book he contemplated equal rights for the women of the ruling class. On the other hand his idea of "Unable to work for three days? You should commit suicide in order not to be a burden on society!" would fit well with RW economics.
"
and now, Customs and Border Patrol shoots two people in Portland OR.
what the actual fuck is going on.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
Gift link from today's NYT about their interview with Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html?unlocked_article_code=1.C1A.Jn36.S3vByKtmLaG4&smid=url-share
President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
"
I've heard war historians refer to WWI and WWII as "The Second Thirty Years War," and while the postwar period did mark the start of the effort to create international agreements governed by consensus and law, it also marked the beginnings of hyperglobalism, and soon after of networked societies. Some historians mark those last two developments as the beginning of the end for the Westphalian Peace that was instituted as a system in the first Thirty Years War.
(I did think a bit while writing my earlier post if I should describe Trump's worldview as 19th C. or 17th. C. for this very reason.)
"
"Worth noting that a single US Wasp-class amphibious assault ship..."
I don't think the question on the table is whether the US could prevail in a military takeover of Greenland.
As Stephen Miller notes, rule by brute force and hegemonic domination by the strong has been the way things worked since the beginning of time. Among other things, this led to several centuries of almost continuous warfare in Europe and elsewhere, culminating in the two world wars of the 20th C.
After WWII we - "we" being most nations on the planet - attempted to establish a regime under which we would do things differently. It was imperfect and imperfectly successful. But we've had about 80 years of sort-of peace, at least relative to historical standards. In general, and with the exception of the Soviet Union, we haven't had a lot of wars that were based on "we want your stuff, we're bigger than you, so we're taking it".
Which has been a pretty good thing.
Trump is ripping that up.
I'm pretty sure that, were he to stop threatening to take Greenland by force of arms, folks there would be happy to discuss our security needs and accommodate them to a sufficient degree.
Trump is incapable of dealing with counterparties other than by threats and attempts at domination. With, of course, the notable exception of Russia under Putin. Other nations are not obliged to accept that.
"
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
They did not invite any US units to participate in the 2025 annual Greenland military exercise, just units from France and Germany. Total 550 personnel, two F-16s, one helicopter, one frigate. Write-ups on the exercise also emphasized the difficulties Denmark and France had getting two planes and one helicopter to Greenland.
Worth noting that a single US Wasp-class amphibious assault ship carries more Marines and much heavier weaponry than took part in the exercise. Standard compliment for an AAS is 1900 Marines with six F-35Bs, four attack helicopters, a dozen supply helicopters, three air-cushion landing craft, five tanks, eight howitzers, lots of trucks, plus fuel and ammunition. And a hospital. On the Navy side there's 1200 crew with anti-air and anti-ship missiles, multiple sorts of air and surface radar, and a long list of defensive stuff. The US has seven Wasp-class ships. Range is 9,500 nautical miles. The trip from their Atlantic Coast home port to Greenland and back is about half that.
"
Whether it's "sanewashing" or "Trumpologetics", bc's lawyerly brief argues that the interests of the United States require some sort of action on Greenland. In context, his brief implies that He, Trump's motivation for the bluster and the threats is to serve the interests of the United States. I refer him to Pro Bono's diagnosis of He, Trump's motivations for ... well, everything ... and beg leave to doubt that implication.
Alternatively, bc may be simply pointing out that He, Trump's sinister buffoonery might have the unintended consequence of promoting the interests of the United States, as bc perceives them. He, Trump as useful idiot, IOW. Whether more serious, more diplomatic, more discreet efforts, by a saner and less bombastic president would better serve whatever actual interests the United States has w.r.t. Greenland is a question only an anti-MAGAt would bother with.
Lawyers gonna lawyer, so watch this space when He, Trump actually declares Himself eligible for a 3rd term. Meanwhile, a non-lawyer like me can't resist pointing out that by His own proclamations He, Trump has already been elected president 3 times, so the 22nd Amendment is already moot.
--TP
"
The US has military bases on Greenland. Greenland wants to continue that practice, even if it were to become independent. They've specifically pointed to the Compacts of Free Association that the US has with the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. That would likely take care of any strategic concerns.
What Greenland does not want, and what it seems Trump does really want, is a 19th C. imperial resource extraction scheme. Trump's comments point entirely to him thinking like a real estate developer, treating the Greenlanders not as a sovereign people with a right of self-determination, but as tenants on a desirable piece of property that has extensive mineral rights.
All the strategic concerns are true, but none of them ring true as motivations for Trump. He wants his name in the history books as having expanded US territory and acquiring valuable mineral rights that can be exploited to allow the US to dominate the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Anything beyond that is too much detail for the hamster wheel in his head.
"
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland? Other than by declining to hand over the whole island.
"
bc, can you really believe that Trump and his henchmen are capable of that level of sophistication? Because everything I've seen leads me to believe that they have only three modes:
Counter examples of where he threatened, but merely as a wake up call, would be welcome.**
** Note that his threats over NATO members 2% were in pursuit of an excuse (per option 1) to, if not exit NATO altogether, drop any kind to commitment to live up to the treaty. (Yes, I know the treaty only requires consultations if a member is attacked. But I'd be astounded if Trump grasps that.) See option 1 above -- he could care less what they actually spend.
"
Deleted when I found out how to edit!
"
bc: a lot of people here said "he", and I had always tried before to say s/he, so it was a move against assumptions. Thank you for confirming.
“Danish longer than the United States has existed,” that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation. There is no possible current geopolitical reality which could require its military occupation.
Why is that not enough?
It is enough for security, so why is there still talk about the US "needing" Greenland? Could it be that the real reason is more to do with, for example, rare earths, and/or Trump's desire to be a POTUS who "acquired" a territory larger than Louisiana and Alaska?
You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are, it's hard to know what to say to you. And further to which, pretty much everyone I know and read agrees that the other NATO countries were far too slow to ramp up their funding, albeit they are doing so now.
If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don’t.
I don't, and I rather doubt anyone here does either. Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the "McKinney Trap" of assuming that the commentariat here are supporters of the CCP?
And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it.
I'm tempted to say "oh you sweet summer child". It's almost as if you haven't been observing the Trump administration in action, and not only in their foreign adventures. Is there any innocent explanation for their behaviour that you would consider meets the definition of "sane-washing", and how it enables normalisation of morally, legally and practically unwise and unacceptable behaviour?
"
I think you give Trump too much credit, bc. I see your line of reasoning. I think it's beyond him.
"
russell: I did not say they did. I specifically support moves by the EU and Denmark to take global security vis-a-vis Greenland seriously that take any sort of unilateral action off the table.
"
bc, which of the concerns you list justify seizing Greenland by fiat?
The comments by Trump, Miller, et al are far beyond stupid and unnecessary. They are threats.
The people in Greenland, by an overwhelming majority, don't want to be part of the US. That should be the end of the discussion.
"
lj: most of them are talking about the precedent of Panama and Noriega . . .
If memory serves, Noriega tried every argument that Maduro might try and failed as far as the extradition is concerned in his criminal case. Things don't look great for him from a criminal law perspective. Of course separation of powers, international law and foreign policy concerns are another matter.
I’m hoping bc will tell us what her reasoning is (or will be) about the menacing of Greenland (or its takeover), given her extraordinary comments about the US occupation in WW2, bearing in mind for example that Greenland has been Danish longer than the United States has existed.
Well, I'm a guy, but thanks for not assuming. And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort, I'll bite.
I think the comments by both Trump and Miller are stupid, disrespectful and unnecessary. It threatens NATO. Prodding NATO members to pay their fair share is one thing. This is entirely another. Or is it?
Maybe it's prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. There is a geopolitical reality that Denmark's comments seem to indicate it isn't really grasping the threat, IMO. I hear about Greenlander self-determination but precious little about the strategic threat posed by the Russians and Chinese and what I understand is an inadequate response by Greenland specifically and Denmark and the EU in general. As I understand it, Greenland's autonomy has led to more Chinese involvement than the US wants (and in fairness, Denmark seems to be concerned too). China is claiming to be a "near arctic state" and is expanding its influence in places like Greenland (and the waters off of Alaska). The Chinese want access to the rare earth minerals in Greenland and access to shipping lanes and have signaled they want more. Trump has made it clear that Greenland's location and rare earths are a national security concern. Because of the strategic importance and threat to the US, the US is right to be very concerned about any Chinese or Russian presence in or near Greenland.
I don't see my comments about WWII and Greenland as extraordinary. The question was whether the GRU letter prompted Trump's comments on Greenland. I wasn't using WWII as an excuse to annex Greenland.
That being said, when I hear "Danish longer than the United States has existed," that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily. Could that be the case in the future? It doesn't need to be if the situation could be dealt with by agreement now. And maybe it has been to a large extent in terms of US military access? Denmark signed an agreement last July that had been sitting on its desk since 2023 (drafted under Biden). Why did it take so long? Why is that not enough? Agreement here:
https://www.fmn.dk/globalassets/fmn/dokumenter/nyheder/2023/-us-denmark-dca-den-prime-english-20dec2023-.pdf
Interesting discussion about the agreement here ("we had to do it" vs. "But Trump!!"):
https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-finalizes-us-defense-deal-despite-greenland-gripes/a-73210846
Before, the US had to coordinate and it appears Denmark may not have been all that nimble in responding. But maybe this is entirely about giving China access and threatening security and not taking the threat (and the Russians in the Arctic) seriously. If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don't. And the Chinese have tried in Greenland (airport and harbor).
Yes, Denmark's claim to Greenland deserves respect. So does the fact that the US tends to pay the bill when things get really tough. Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments. Trump is right to push NATO countries into their fair share (Canada, that means you). You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland. And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it. It seems to be working. Interesting article here from an EU perspective that covers what EU should do (and I largely agree with the suggestions).
https://www.epc.eu/publication/its-a-bargain-the-case-of-greenland/
"
Speaking of "f**ked up", the US has withdrawn from the UNFCCC
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/07/climate/trump-withdrawal-climate-treaty-international-agreements
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/07/trump-international-groups-un
https://www.un.org/climatesecuritymechanism/en/united-nations-framework-convention-climate-change-unfccc-and-climate-peace-and-security
"
He shot her for trying to leave - for being disobedient. The bar for deadly force is almost on the ground.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.