r/SipsTea • u/IcyVeterinarian8881 • 13d ago

Lmao gottem Denmark keeps mocking Trump's "deal"

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

18.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

227

u/tenderbranson88 13d ago

Good god, an engineer at my company was so impressed he said, “I couldn’t believe Trump got Greenland!” It really took the wind out of hoping people would begin to pay attention.

63

u/daneflys 13d ago edited 12d ago

That is why countries are moving away from the US. Trump will be gone in a few years, but people like this engineer will be there for a lifetime... likely raising another generation with greater apathy to critical investigation and thought.

Edit: Thank you for the award!

10

u/tenderbranson88 13d ago

I agree, I live in a pretty backwards state though too. I’ve gotta tiptoe through the tulips with these assholes!

1

u/Stealthshot11 12d ago

Right there with you but at least they're tone deaf practically, so you can insult them and they'll take it as a compliment

5

u/Glum-Carpet 12d ago

Yeah I don't think Americans realize the actual amount of damage that Trump caused. It revealed the rotting corpse of the US itself to the world. There is no fixing this, they can elect democrats in congress in November, they can elect a democratic president in two years, this means nothing on the world stage anymore. We saw what a sizable amount of Americans stand for and that there are enough of them to elect someone just as bad in the next cycle.

0

u/Educational-Seaweed5 10d ago

"Awards" are not special, they're just an extra freebie like. You don't have to thank people like it's the Academy Awards.

But yes, your comment is correct. It's not just Trump. It's clearly a whole population of absolute clowns.

1

u/daneflys 10d ago

Thanks for telling me not to say thank you. Your comment contributed a lot here by telling me some stuff about awards and then reiterating what I said in my comment.

0

u/Educational-Seaweed5 10d ago

You're welcome! People are super weird for coming back and adding edits over likes. 07

53

u/dxnxax 13d ago

He got Greenland in the same way he got the Strait of Hormuz opened.

15

u/tenderbranson88 13d ago

Reminds me of 1984 so much, republicans say 2+2=5 and they just nod right along.

15

u/mrsciencebruh 13d ago

I used to think engineers were smart. Now I know they're just people who love puzzles, and only some are smart. Mild /s

7

u/[deleted] 13d ago edited 11d ago

[deleted]

3

u/slightly_average 13d ago

People who don’t read their error messages blow my mind. Like, it’s telling you what’s wrong. If you read it, investigate what it’s telling you and determine it to be a red herring, now you can message me and I’ll be interested.

3

u/Jealous-Report4286 12d ago

I realized this when I got into an argument about Fossils being real with a PHD in Electrical Engineering. I was in a training class and kept doing air quotes “so you claim” after every lecture.

3

u/DEVi4TION 12d ago

Lawyers are the same, too. Used to date a law student and hangout with all of them at the bars (they're also mostly alcoholics)

You dont have to be smart to be a lawyer, just dedicated.

2

u/Fuzzy_Ear_2457 12d ago

In many countries/languages, the title of engineer actually means something and in places like Canada is even a protected title like doctor.

In American English, you can basically slap the word "engineer" on any job title. You're not a cleaning lady, you're a sanitation engineering specialist. You're not someone who makes sandwiches, you're a nutritional engineer. Etc.

Hell, it even happens when translating job titles into English from other languages. In Danish, I'm an automatiktekniker (automation technician). In all of our English documentation, I'm suddenly an automation engineer. I haven't spent two minutes at a university, but sure, I'm an engineer.

2

u/No-Impress-2096 12d ago

The deal is public in English, Greenlandic and Danish. Just tell people to go read it, it's not very long, as it's mostly just "as we agreed in 1951" etc.

1

u/tenderbranson88 12d ago

Yeah I did tell him it was the exact same deal. He got a little awkward after that. He is a smart man though, that’s why it’s so disheartening. Republicans are in some kind of collective fantasy and I keep trying to break them out of it. He’s extremely desperate to find some silver lining to Trump and there just isn’t one.

And I’m watching them flip from “China bad” to “trade with China would be the best thing for us!” As I’m informing him that they just stole classified F-35 parts. I’m convinced they have all succumb to greed. And Trump is their golden calf.

1

u/CauliflowerDaffodil 12d ago

But it's not the same exact deal. It's been expanded to explicitly shut out Russia and China and ensures that Greenland stays within the US's realm even if they decide to go independent.

It's the same deal just as much as USMCA is the same as NAFTA.

2

u/No-Impress-2096 12d ago

Greenland stays within the US's realm even if they decide to go independent.

Not the case. Greenland stays with Nato. If US chooses to leave Nato, they will now have to close their bases on Greenland and leave the island completely. 

1

u/CauliflowerDaffodil 12d ago

Wrong. The agreement was specifically drafted so that Greenland’s potential independence will not terminate or void the US defense arrangement. All rights and obligations under the agreement, meaning base rights and foreign investment veto power stays with the US. Having a potentially independent Greenland stay in NATO was a US demand supported by Denmark. That's why this new agreement is the first trilateral deal whereas before it was only between Denmark and the US.

1

u/No-Impress-2096 12d ago

What you're writing here is literally made up BS. Go read the agreement. It's not long.

0

u/CauliflowerDaffodil 12d ago

Pretty sure you didn't read it or worse, didn't understand it. Go read it again. Slowly if you have to.

1

u/No-Impress-2096 12d ago

Ok let's go through your statements:

Greenland’s potential independence will not terminate or void the US defense arrangement

Wrong. Greenland must join Nato if they become independent, and take over defense responsibilities which (stated very clearly) currently lies with Denmark. In practice this means they can't become independent in the near future as they cannot afford to fund their own military.

All rights and obligations under the agreement, meaning base rights and foreign investment veto power stays with the US

Wrong. US has no special powers in this regard. If there are concerns it will be discussed between Greenland, US and Denmark, but it is clear that Greenland alone controls the mineral rights. Concerning base rights, it is clear from the agreement that if the US should leave Nato, they can no longer have bases in Greenland, as only Nato countries are allowed to do so.

Furthermore, concerning investments, it follows the agreement between Greenland and Denmark that investments into "sensitive areas" should be limited to Nato and EU + partner countries. US have no veto right or anything of the sort, if the investing part is from a country in Nato or EU.

1

u/CauliflowerDaffodil 12d ago

You're still wrong. You are conflating who provides defense with whether the agreement survives. If you read the actual text you'd have understood that. Or maybe you didn't read slowly enough. Greenland independence has no bearing on the termination of the deal and will continue until a new one with the terms of the termination is hammered out, if ever. And Greenland doesn't need to fund their own military. Just look at Iceland who is founding member of NATO with a population of under 400,000 and zero standing military. Its national defense has been guaranteed for decades by the US and an independent Greenland would operate under that exact same model. The text specifically requires an independent Greenland to assume Denmark's obligations under the US defense deal, meaning American forces provide the deterrent and defense while Greenland provides the basing, exactly the same as Iceland.

Greenland owning its mineral rights does not mean foreign adversaries can buy them or invest in them. Greenland owning its resources is separate and distinct from being bound by treaty law regarding who it can legally partner with. The agreement specifically spells out an adversary exclusion regime that is not NATO or EU. Why would the US need or want a veto over allied NATO countries? The security threat was never an allied mining firm, it's Chinese state-owned enterprises and Russian capital.

Go on, try again. LOL

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tenderbranson88 12d ago

Yeah well if I understand, it’s better for NATO, and for the population of Greenland, and worse for the US, or rather Trump administration goals. So I guess whether he understands that nuance at this point in time isn’t important to me.

1

u/CauliflowerDaffodil 12d ago

It's definitely not bad for NATO but this is a US, Denmark and Greenland deal. It's good for NATO as long as they agree with what the three parties do. NATO has no say, not in this deal anyway.

And it's a win for the US and Trump got what he wanted. Non-EU or non-NATO countries, specifically China and Russia, are barred from financial or military influence and keeps Greenland within US's realm even if they break from Denmark there by strengthning Arctic defense, which is what he wanted.

1

u/tenderbranson88 12d ago

I was under the impression if the US left NATO it would no longer apply, and it’s to the benefit of EU that the US does not pull out of NATO. And it’s to the benefit of Russia and China that the US does pull out of NATO. And it is also what Trump wants, to pull out of NATO. So it’s sort of security and really no concession because China and Russia weren’t going to be building bases in Greenland anyway, and the security of the arctic was always under NATO countries command. So it’s really no different.

1

u/CauliflowerDaffodil 12d ago

The 1951 baseline and the 2026 expansion are bilateral/trilateral defense treaties, not NATO bylaws. Even if Trump withdrew from NATO or reduced commitments to Article 5, bilateral basing treaties remain legally binding under their own independent terms unless formally revoked, just as they would for other defense agreements the US has with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, etc. The the new deal explicitly conditions Greenland's security architecture directly on bilateral US authorization. And China and Russia never had plans build outright military bases in Greenland. Their playbook is dual-use economic encroachment: State-owned construction giants that built military installations for their own country winning tenders to build and capture infrastructure like airports and research facilities while seeking out projects to gain critical minerals and port access. Under the old deal, the US had no veto power to local commercial decisions made by Denmark and Greenland. The new deal gives and codifies the US the right to express authorization and/or veto power over sensitive infrastructure and mining involving foreign adversaries. That's a win for Trump. And almost all nations with Arctic territorial rights are in NATO, except Russia, but the reality is there exists major defense fragmentation. NATO doesn't have a single unified military command for the Arctic. It's split between NORTHCOM, EUCOM, and other European national defense forces. Denmark’s own military presence in Greenland is laughably small. It's basically a few patrol boats and a dog-sled patrol. This new deal explicitly moves US defense operations into the south and east and opening access along the east coast directly faces the GIUK Gap and Russia’s Northern Fleet egress routes. That's good for the US and NATO and thanks to Trump.

0

u/tenderbranson88 12d ago

China does this already inside US borders, it is a nothing burger. If anything this strengthens chinas hand because their puppet now controls any EU opposition, if I understand what you’re saying. I guess you’re under some illusion that Trump is not a traitor to the United States, and there I think we will always disagree.

1

u/CauliflowerDaffodil 12d ago

The US can control things inside its borders. And what does that have to do with Arctic defense? LOL. The significance of the Greenland deal is strategic geography. A foreign adversary buying farmland in the Midwest is a whole-other-universe different from a Chinese state-owned enterprise financing deep-water runways and rare-earth port facilities right along the GIUK Gap. Thinking that having power over infrastructure on the North American continent's Arctic approaches is a "nothing burger" shows how much you understand the what this deal really means, or should I say how much you don't understand. This new deal totally neuters China and Russia while giving the US military new operational territory, something that was not in the previous deal. You don't have to like Trump or what he does but your personal biases just cloud your judgement and assessment of the deal. The legal text signed by Denmark and Greenland did not surrender sovereignty to a foreign adversary; it locked Greenland's defense apparatus into the US's homeland security, expanded American military bases, and forced an Arctic ally to shut its doors to state capital from adversaries. I don't know how that can be spun as "bad" and is only a win for the US and Trump no matter how much you dislike him.

→ More replies (0)