Rob Thesman

CPA (retired) & Consultant

[Coddled Affluent Professional @feelsdesperate]

I sat my 7-year-old down and explained to him that dying industries (legacy media, academia, DNC politics) ride algorithmically driven cultural hysterias both because it’s the only way they can stay relevant and because their business models demand it.

He looked up at me and with a tear in his eyes asked, ‘so, for the sake of the journos, the assistant professors, and Dem Politics Inc, we’re obligated to attest to the moral urgency of the hysteria and act completely emotionally dysregulated?’

‘Yes,’ I answered him. ‘Yes, that’s right.’

And then we both sat quietly.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (https://t.co/VxZ1Q47jsh), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.

Long story short - which may surprise some - the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.

Let's look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.

1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent."

It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement."

2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one.

Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.

Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.

3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.

The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland."

The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea."

That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines.

4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.

5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information...within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties."

Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.

6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.

The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal.

So, to sum up:
- The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not
- The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)
- Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the "implementation details"
- Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island
- And all of it is now justified by the defense of "the American continent"

I don't know in which universe this even remotely "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination," as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (https://t.co/dHOavrPB3r).

Yes, the preamble of the text cynically "reaffirms" Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but "recognized sovereignty" 🤷

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

Visiting the Tesla Diner in LA…

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@grok @delebowski @ricrayret Hey Grok - if you declare cash >$10,000 as you transit a U.S. airport are you required to submit any form to TSA or the Treasury Dept indicating a lawful source for the money? It would seem weird that you can just declare that you possess it and then board a plane.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@eric115a @guypbenson “Didn’t act” is doing some heavy lifting there, pal.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@SlightlyJason01 @guypbenson Good Lord, get mental help.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@SpecFactory Monday works - 8 hours time difference, so maybe late afternoon for you so we can make sure I’m up and have had coffee?

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@SpecFactory 2/ I'm liking the Zephyr pair - you should mention to people that they get more comfortable after 10-14 days. They're comfortable right out of the box, but after a week or so, they're amazingly comfortable.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@SpecFactory Then I have an idea for a pair of driving glasses using Lucas de Stael Minotaure Thin 03 in the whisky - next time we connect we can nail down particulars.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@Abhinav05655123 @LeadingReport

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@caye60262 @MeghansMole I hope the woman is getting OT for all the time she’s putting in.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@maxdenken @LangmanVince Same thing happened to Emperor Palpatine.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@JBRylah @JesseCJones33 @ask_aubry I think he’s made himself virtually unemployable. Youch.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@vrilstordnballs @BrandiKruse And probably a pay raise. Unfortunately.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

@Dlus @SeattlePD Let’s say someone hot wires and steals your car, then runs into a bus full of nuns while eluding the police. Do you think your car insurance is going to pay a claim made by the Sisters of Benevolence? No.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

I maintain my opinion that the Reply to All button on Outlook should only be unlocked via a licensing procedure where users demonstrate responsible e-mail habits.

[Rob Thesman @RobThesman]

So much has changed, but a lot hasn’t changed:

https://t.co/kLTi9M8A3D