135
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2026
135 points (98.6% liked)
politics
31213 readers
3102 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So my guess is, this is to distract from how incredibly bad his Greenland deal was.
Uhhh, what Greenland deal?
The one that hadn’t been signed or even spelled out really. It’s tremendously bigly.
Are news reports of some deal being signed inaccurate?
This is from 3 days ago:
This looks to be today: https://www.rfi.fr/en/international-news/20260922-trump-signs-security-deal-with-greenland-denmark-at-un
Signed, very good. No details other than they plan to build more bases there. That’s going to be expensive and pointless, but ok.
Yeah, there’s language that a non-NATO, non-EU country can’t build military bases there, so, uh, win. I guess? But as an agreement, the whole thing’s a big puffy nothing. Unless there’s something in the other 9 pages that’s a real shocker.
"infinite life contract" in which basically Greenland belongs to America from how i understood it.
It's pretty much the same deal as before, but now Greenland needs to be considered first for supplying of the bases, instead of USA choosing whomever they want as supplier.
I wouldn't call it a bad deal. He walked in with nothing, asked for a lot, walked away with something, which is more than he deserved to get
I don't think any other potential outcome would've been better for anyone.
Actually I'd rather call it an agreement than a deal, because the only losers of the "deal" (Russia and China) were not part of the negotiation at all.
It was an embarrassing “deal” for him. He went in with enough, threatened with war, walked away with pretty much the same as he went in with “deal” wise, but lost all trust of most Europeans along the way.
The signing of the “deal” was covered heavily on all danish media platforms yesterday, everybody basically praying he wouldn’t find out he’s been played. He thinks he got the best deal ever, we’re just happy that his predatory attention is somewhere else for now.
Sure, the lost trust was not worth it. He could've just asked politely for the same thing.
He talks a lot of bullshit, but even he underestimated the stamina of the Danish Foreign Minister when it comes to maintaining a bullshit dialogue.
However, I don't think that portraying it as if the bully got framed is a good way to see it, because that acknowledges the behaviour of the bully and that Denmark stooped down to play with the bully. It's a fair description, but not really useful for anything other than critisism. We need to look forward.
I still prefer to view it as an agreement between allies rather than a win/lose scenario. Once the passageways over the Arctic opens it will be beneficial to Nato and EU that China doesn't have the opportunity to interfere economically.
It also solidifies Greenlands position among the "western" world if/when they decide to become independent. If they went independent right now, they'd be a 3rd world country, and we already know how China likes to "invest" in 3rd world countries for their own benefit only.
I think the trust is gone for lots of other reasons as well, so it will take decades to rebuild that. Again, we need to look ahead, and this agreement is a small step in the right direction.