Rest easy shipmate, heās got the watch
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Greenland
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
While I agree this is fucking looney tunes and no way for a super power to conduct itself, I think there is a strategy here no too dissimilar from every other ānegotiationā this admin and 45 have conducted. Itās actually laid out pretty directly in the Art of the Deal.
Start with an opening position so brash, aggressive, and unpalatable for your opponent that by moving slightly to center (which is to say not the center, just not as polarizing as the opening position) you have created a degree of relative improvement and the opponent sees it as less horrible and therefore a ābetterā alternative. Itās been a while since I studied game theory but there are elements of the strategy that do make sense IN A VACUUM and Iām guessing the President has used this approach for a longtime. But since he wrote a fucking book about it there is no reason to suspect the whole world is unaware of his strategy by now.
What I donāt understand is how in situations where he has no real leverage (e.g. Greenland) the Danes donāt call his bluff by straight up ignoring him. Every time he does this he gets a reaction which is what he wants - if Denmark just yea āyea sure whatever, try and invadeā the entire thing would be forgotten by lunch time.
Start with an opening position so brash, aggressive, and unpalatable for your opponent that by moving slightly to center (which is to say not the center, just not as polarizing as the opening position) you have created a degree of relative improvement and the opponent sees it as less horrible and therefore a ābetterā alternative. Itās been a while since I studied game theory but there are elements of the strategy that do make sense IN A VACUUM and Iām guessing the President has used this approach for a longtime. But since he wrote a fucking book about it there is no reason to suspect the whole world is unaware of his strategy by now.
What I donāt understand is how in situations where he has no real leverage (e.g. Greenland) the Danes donāt call his bluff by straight up ignoring him. Every time he does this he gets a reaction which is what he wants - if Denmark just yea āyea sure whatever, try and invadeā the entire thing would be forgotten by lunch time.
Decent take. The weakness of that approach is as soon as your opponent realizes thatās how you deal, itās a lot harder to have your intentions taken seriously.
Remember also that the Danes have to save face at home- itās not as simple as ignoring the schoolyard bully, even if theyād like it to be. If someone threatened to take Hawaii by force, weād expect a little more than a āMehā, particularly if the threat came from a foreign leader with a strong military and a history of irrational and impulsive action.
Youāre not wrong, but there are some indications the world is catching on. I havenāt heard much about Canada becoming the 51st state recently, probably because Canada wrote it off as blatantly stupid and stopped reacting to the rhetoric.
There is also a distinction above between situations where he does have leverage (tariffs, foreign aid) and where he doesnāt (Canada, Greenland). It doesnāt take a Rhodes Scholar to realize if he doesnāt have leverage just ignore him and heāll go away.
Sometimes, maybe. It didnāt exactly work for Maduro, did it?
The thing to bear in mind with Trump is his irrational and impulsive nature. Traditional expectations donāt work, and one can never assume he is acting in good faith, or even from a consistent set of principles. It probably drives the career diplomats and real Rhodes scholars crazy, and- inexplicably- is what his supporters seem to like about him.
World stability be damned.
I would argue he did have leverage in the Maduro situation. The world writ large is happier that Maduro is gone so even those whinging about the means are likely glad about the end. Heās a horrible bastard who helped decimate a country.
I donāt think that will be the same if we invade and annex Greenland which hasnāt done anything offensive to anyone sinceā¦ever?
I saw a prediction on this as well.
50 billion is roughly a million to every person living on the island (including children).
Offer it up along with an immediate designation to citizen status and see how far that goes in referendum would be a way cheaper way to assumption of control of Greenland as some kind of non state protectorate.
I donāt think any of this will happen, but hey its fun to think about. Weird thing is to deep dive into our buildup of Island during WWII and the Cold Warā¦. That wasnāt exactly a āhey guys come in and make yourself at homeā relationship either so this could be history kind of repeating its self.
What he has done negotiation-wise is open with "I'm going to rape you" and then downgraded to "I'm going to buy you dinner."
Exactly. Itās despicable - but people keep taking him up on the dinner.
Self determination. It is a founding idea of this country and considered a bedrock principle of the modern nation-state. If folks need a reminder, the UK fought a war and lost 250 lives over some islands that had a mere 2000 British citizens a little over 40 years ago over this very principle and we supported them wholeheartedly. Countries that still have non-contiguous territories still maintain this policy, to include us for places like Puerto Rico along with the Dutch, Brits and the Danes in this case. Even as recently as 2010 the Dutch held a referendum in their Caribbean territories and they all chose to stay as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in one form or another.
Greenland is an independent or constituent country in the Kingdom of the Denmark, much like Aruba for the Netherlands or the Isle of Man for the UK, with the Danes responsible for international affairs and defense while Greenland handles most domestic affairs. If the Greenlanders want to become independent or transfer sovereignty it would be a collective decision between the Kingdom and Greenlanders, likely in the form of a referendum. If Greenland chose to associate themselves with us and the Kingdom assents, then fine. If not, no dice. And from recent polling a mere 6% of the country would want to become part of the US, with 85% not.
I get that, and many people around the world get that but to publicly do so in international affairs can be extremely damaging and among many other things is that it can harden the other side's position. The Falklands again provides an excellent example, prior to the invasion the Brits were willing to compromise a bit on sovereignty but after the first shots were fired all bets were off and there has been no possibility of compromise since then. Remember, this isn't just a business negotiation over selling a company or an office building but national sovereignty and citizenship, LOTS of blood has been spilled over those over the years.
I also get the sense that many, to include some folks here, don't grasp how just deeply insulting this rhetoric is to the citizens of the countries that are targeted. National pride runs deep even in places like Canada and Denmark, and when someone casually threatens their very existence it can unsurprisingly garner a pretty visceral reaction. Canadian travel to this country is way down and they are purchasing a lot less US goods, and neither will likely recover any time soon. And there is the less tangible things like international relations and cooperation, where countries to include close allies may be less willing to work with us on stuff now and in the future.
I wouldnāt be against simply setting up a vote and the people of Greenland can decide what they want.
Iām not super informed on what Denmark gets out of Greenland or what the people of Greenland receive from Denmark so I really donāt know how it would work. But ultimately it should be their decision not ours.