I thought it might be interesting to read what Scandinavians thought of the president’s reaction to the Prime Minister of Denmark. I as born in Sweden and my roots are there going back centuries.
A Scandinavian perspective of Trump’s behavior towards Denmark
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The article you link is a good example of why I don’t often read the Washington Post.
The headline characterizes Trump’s proposal to buy Greenland as a “saga of the absurd,” and indeed, the body of the piece makes that assertion. But while the assertion is illustrated at length by the writer’s careful characterization of events, it is never substantiated.
For example, the writer says, “You don’t actually inquire discreetly whether this idea would ever fly. Instead, you launch it straight out in public without any warning.” Now, maybe that’s the way things happened. But then, maybe it is not. The writer doesn’t offer any confirmation. We are left to take him at his word.
Substantively, the WAPO piece is an extended exercise in mind reading or guessing at the mental state and attitudes of those involved in the events it describes. I find entertainments of this genre tiresome.
LikeLike
It may have been WAPO, but the writer was definitely a Swede writing how Scandinavia saw it. It was an opinion from across the pond.
It obviously wasn’t the way you saw it. But you’re not Swedish. I suspect that those nations don’t live and breathe Trump unless he causes issues for them.
And the Danish PM was taken by surprise, as were many in the government. She so stated.
From the day in and day out reversals, backtracks, reinterpretations of Trump’s tweets I would not be at all shocked to learn that most of the free world find that “entertainment” also quite “tiresome”.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
He felt personally insulted and got his panties in a wad.
The exact level of “Presidential” behavior we’ve come to expect….
Unfortunately, it continues to add to the degradation of our relationships with allies that are being courted by both Russia and China as we watch this “foreign policy ?” debacle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “It obviously wasn’t the way you saw it.”
You don’t know that. And that’s the problem.
As the publisher, WAPO has a responsibility to ensure its own content meets basic journalistic standards. There’s nothing more basic than the rule that assertions require substantiations.
Here, for example, we are left to assume that the writer has some sort of inside knowledge or special perspective. That would be enough to substantiate the assertions he makes. But again, the assumption is never validated.
LikeLike
Well shoot the messenger. His opinion was valid in my view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the assumption of “inside knowledge or special perspective” is a safe one in that the writer IS a former PM of Sweden.
Trump announced his intention to try and purchase Greenland publicly, without any apparent discussion behind the scenes between our State Department and the Danish government. The Danish PM was rightly, IMO, taken aback by the idea. She found it absurd, which as the leader of the country in question, she is entitled to do. It was not a personal insult to Trump, just to the idea of him talking about a desire to buy Greeneland. How would you react to the idea of say, Germany, stating its desire to purchase Guam or Puerto Rico from us, especially without some sort of pre-work between the 2 governments?
Your defense of Mr. Trump on this issue seems off base and complete fealty to our current POTUS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I think the assumption of ‘inside knowledge or special perspective’ is a safe one in that the writer IS a former PM of Sweden.”
Sweeden and Denmark are two different countries. And being a former PM means that Mr. Bildt no longer has direct access to the same sources of information he once had, as far as we know.
Hence, the assumption is tenuous and WAPO should have made some attempt to deal with it. Irresponsibly, it didn’t.
LikeLike
For that same reason, Trump had no justification to rescind security clearances from “former” intel specialists who provide insight to current administrators.
Now it is you who are assuming that status of Mr. Bildt and whether he has access to information or not. His insight is lot more credible than that of someone who won’t even stop by and say hello.
WAPO posted an opinion piece from a seemingly reliable source of Scandinavian politics. I don’t see anything irresponsible in publishing those opinions any more than Marc Thiessen being published in the Pilot. Or Eugene Robinson. Or any of the other GUEST commentators.
LikeLike
RE: “I don’t see anything irresponsible in publishing those opinions…”
WAPO can publish whatever it wants. That this item ain’t worth spit is why, as stated, I don’t often read it.
LikeLike
The other issue is that it is an OPINION piece, not a news piece. The opinion of someone who has lived in a region, been politically involved with it and has insights that most Americans don’t or can’t have is worth a lot more spit than a lot of the opinion pieces around here that trumpet Trump as the second coming of….who, I’m not sure.
LikeLike
RE: “The other issue is that it is an OPINION piece”
I’m tempted to ask, So what? Opinions are assertions that require substantiation, just like any other. You are assuming this particular opinion is more substantiated than it actually is.
That’s OK by me. I’m just pointing out that calling the article and opinion doesn’t give it special status.
LikeLike
RE: “Your defense of Mr. Trump on this issue seems off base and complete fealty to our current POTUS.”
What makes you think my comments are in any way a defense of Mr. Trump?
LikeLike
THey certainly NEVER call him out for any of his faults. You tend to attempt to give him cover.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Wall-talking” can be addictive, but is seldom productive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “THey certainly NEVER call him out for any of his faults.”
I appreciate you answering, but surely you can see your fallacy?
LikeLike
What fallacy is three in pointing out I don’t recall you ever criticizing Trump. Be it for his policies, his language or his actions. There is no fallacy there. If you want to convince me otherwise, you are free to try.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fallacy is that none of my comments in this discussion specifically defends Trump. Therefore it is illogical (non sequitur) to reason that my comments here are indicative of some general trend that you otherwise perceive.
LikeLike
Still not convinced. Basing my thoughts on historical perspective of your own comments are just as valid to this discussion as it is to any other. And it ain’t no perception. I have never seen form you here, or on VP, a comment critical of Mr. Trump. You are just like Matt Schlaub of the American Conservative Union who stated he didn’t hear the words Trump spoke that the rest of the country did. Or the head of the Club for Growth, who Charlie Dent, (R) – PA (formerly) takes to task in this piece:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/opinions/club-for-growth-sold-out-trump-dent/index.html
LikeLike