115
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 23 Sep 2026
115 points (98.3% liked)
World News
58158 readers
1928 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm no military strategist, but normally if a country threatens to take over your territory you don't let them build military bases there.
There is basically nothing new in that agreement, USA always had the option to have more bases in Greenland, and they used to have that during the cold war. It is USA themselves that have limited the number of bases they wanted to have there.
Trump just think he made some kind of deal, when in reality that deal has been there for more than half a century.
Technically he lost ground, we had very very wide range on the number and location of us bases and now we're limited to two without renegotiation.
Yeah, this is... Trumps playbook again and again.
Make up fake controversial bullshit, get massive headlines, never actually follow through with bullshit, and then just do what we were gonna do already and call it a 'victory'. But nothing was ever really done, it was all a storm in a teacup and legally or operationally nothing really changed.
All his 'wins' are just maintaining the status quo, and the media and the public eat it up.
There's also a clause that says they can only be there if USA is in NATO.
Which ties them.to NATO for the foreseeable.
Oh yeah I'm sure we'll promptly vacate these military bases if/when we leave NATO.
One, that's unfortunate
Two, if the US breaks off NATO, it's not like anyone should expect whoever is there at the time to say "oh okay never mind" and then sit up and leave.
They weren't there before for whatever reason, and now that they have a foot in, they're just gonna keep pushing.
Sure, but with Trump there never really is a "deal", because at some point in the future he'll just decide he wants something else. See, e.g., NAFTA. In this case, he'll build up the bases and then declare Greenland part of the U.S.. I'd like to believe that the midterm elections will shift the balance of power, and Trump will face a reckoning, but in reality I think he'll do something like declare martial law and fuck the elections. He's already ordered republicans to "cheat like hell". It's going to be an interesting year end.
Absolutely Trump is not to be trusted, but I think this was not so much about the deal as it was to appease Trump so he will focus elsewhere.
It's like when you distract a crying baby by shaking the rattle that's already in their hand.
Besides the Orange signature being worthless, they could deal for less enemy's presence, not more.
Yeah I was always surprised they didn't just take over this way to begin with.
If the reason they have to invade is so that they can build military bases, they no longer have reason to invade.
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 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'mn 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.
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.
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.
These bases won't be operational for years, by which time we'll likely be rational again.
And with the US carrier strategy, this doesn't really make attacking Greenland any easier or more likely.
They're not building from scratch, but one is abandoned and one was only used by dog sledders...
The current US government isn't exactly competent, this is not a short term threat.
And locks us into NATO in the meantime, which is a short term threat
I hope we will be rational again in a couple years. It took trials and decades of divided Germany to mostly fix the scourge of Nazism. We might have to ban all MAGA speech and symbols, which would be an interesting Constitutional challenge.
Buddy...
Like, you for real think trump leaving office will be as big of a deal as the Nazis losing WW2?
Shits fucking bad, to an unacceptable level...
But it's nowhere near actually nazi bad, even though most of Trump's admin wants it to be. Like, the reason it was so hard post WW2, is even German children were conscripted into the Nazi military. They were actually fighting in a war, and carried that damage with them after the war
That alone is a massive difference.
trump disappearing from American politics will be much closer to GW leaving office than hitler shooting himself.
By 2030 I fully expect most Republicans to claim they never personally supported trump just like they did after GW left office.
But all that needs to happen to keep them out of office is not having the only option be a neoliberal. And since neoliberals can't win fair elections and the current DNC will run fair primaries, we don't
I feel like it's almost early Mousilini bad...
I'm not saying MAGA is as bad as Nazi Germany (yet), but the lawbreaking, ethics violations, and constitutional infringements will take many many years to process. It's been multiple things by so much of the administration every damn day.
None of that started with trump...
trump just sucks at hiding it.
And it's as easy of a fix as electing a decent president. The reason that used to be hard, was neoliberals controlling the DNC for 30+ years.
The reason it stopped being hard, is neoliberals don't control the DNC.
Like, two years ago people would have said it would take decades to route out the corruption in the NYC mayora office.
It was actually pretty easy. Mamdani's big secret is he's just genuinely trying to fix shit
That works on a national level as well
Really, America is going to have complete generational turnover of its electorate in just a couple of years?
Well if America doesn't, I don't think we'll still be calling it "America" anymore in a couple of years.
Yep, nothing new about those bases, just two money pits in the middle of nowhere. If they end up being more than a rough airfield and a dozen marines in a tent, it will be shocking. And by “it” I mean the price tag.
My main concern is that Trump seems to have learned that "military facility" is his magic "I can do what I want" card. The ballroom has a bunker under it so it's a matter of national security to build it. His triumphal arch is going to be a sniper nest and drone launcher (can't make this stuff up) so it's a matter of national security.
So let's see if those "military bases" come with oil wells or strip mines as an integral part of their design.
You think? I decided I won't go to Fascistan ever again in my lifetime, about 10 years ago. Neither for missions nor for holidays. Lots of bridges are burnt and it will take more than a lifetime to rebuild trust. By which time Fascistan and Putistan and Europe will likely be irrelevant because China and India etc...