The phrase "on the sidelines" is doing something very specific in that Greenland announcement, and most people read it as a shrug. It is not a shrug. It is a scheduling category with its own machinery, its own time limits, its own seating plan, and its own politics. Daniel wants to know what the phrase actually means, how these meetings get arranged, where they sit on the ladder of diplomatic seriousness, and why a government would choose a label that sounds like two people happened to be near the same water cooler.
And the Greenland case is the perfect test of it, because you have a formal three-party security agreement being signed, and the Danish prime minister's office is describing it as happening on the sidelines of the General Assembly. That is a real agreement with real military implications, folded into a phrase that suggests informality. The tension is the point.
So let's start with the mechanics, because they're more formal than the phrase suggests. How does one actually get a sideline meeting?
It begins weeks before anyone lands in New York. The requesting state's embassy in the host country transmits a formal request, or the sherpa-level coordinators do it directly between delegations. And then the receiving side's chief of staff and protocol officer look at the principal's existing program, which during High-Level Week is punishing. Plenary statements, host-country receptions, the required multilateral pull-asides. They find a window, and the conventional window is twenty to forty-five minutes.
Twenty to forty-five minutes. That's the whole meeting.
That's the whole meeting. And within that, you're doing the full compressed bilateral. Principals enter separately, there's a press spray of thirty to ninety seconds, the cameras are cleared, each principal has two to four advisers, there's an interpreter if needed, a notetaker from each side. The agenda was set beforehand. The talking points were written beforehand. There's a briefing book with a one-page biography of the counterpart and a list of sensitivities to avoid. And the whole thing is aimed at producing a deliverable, which is usually a sentence or two for the readout.
So the casualness is a costume. The meeting has more preparation per minute than most things called meetings in the private sector.
Far more. And the formal term is a bilateral on the margins. In cables it gets shortened to bilat on the margins. That's the term of art. And it is distinct from a pull-aside, which is the actual coffee-break encounter. A pull-aside is five to fifteen minutes, unscheduled, unannounced, often in a corridor or holding room, no formal agenda, no notetaker, often no published readout at all.
And we have a live example of the distinction this same week. The U.S. ambassador to the UN described the Trump meeting with Venezuela's acting president as a pull-aside, not a formal bilateral negotiation. Same venue, same week, different label, different message.
Right. The pull-aside is the lower tier. It signals openness without commitment. The margins bilateral is the higher tier, the scheduled one with the agenda and the readout. And the Greenland signing is being described as on the sidelines, which in the formal taxonomy would be the margins bilateral, not the pull-aside. But the public phrasing doesn't distinguish them, and that ambiguity is useful.
So Daniel's instinct that the phrase implies a deliberate downgrade is correct, but it's more precise than that. It's not just downgrading. It's selecting a format whose public face is casual but whose internal machinery is fully formal.
And here's the thing about the hierarchy. Daniel asked where this falls on the ladder of importance. The protocol ladder for visits runs state visit at the top, then official visit, then working visit. A state visit is a head of state invitation, twenty-one-gun salute, state banquet, a joint communiqué of three to eight thousand words negotiated over six to twelve weeks. An official visit is heads of government, nineteen guns, official luncheon, maybe lodged at Blair House. A working visit has no ceremony, no banquet, often just a readout.
And a margins bilateral sits below all three.
Below all three, because it's not a visit to a capital at all. The principal is not the day's primary guest. There's no ceremony. The deliverable is typically a readout sentence rather than a joint statement. So in pure protocol terms, it's near the bottom.
But that's the trap, because protocol hierarchy and actual importance are not the same axis. A margins bilateral can crystallize months of preparatory work into a single deliverable. A botched one can set a relationship back by quarters.
And the Greenland signing is the extreme case. You have the lowest-tier format carrying the highest-stakes content. A three-party security agreement that the U.S. president is describing as giving Washington permanent control over the island's security, while Denmark and Greenland are describing it as recognizing sovereignty and territorial integrity. That gap in the readouts is itself the story.
Let's sit with that gap for a second, because it's the clearest example of why the label matters. Trump says permanent control. Frederiksen says sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Greenlandic chairman says it safeguards security for Greenland, the Kingdom, the United States, and the Western alliance. Three parties, three different framings, one signing announced as on the sidelines.
And the protocol literature says divergent readouts are themselves diplomatic signals. Whether a phrase like constructive or frank appears, which side mentions which deliverable, which side goes first. Here the divergence is enormous. It maps directly onto the domestic politics of each country.
So why choose the sidelines label at all? If the agreement is this consequential, why not announce a formal bilateral signing?
Because the label does real work. When two countries whose relations are strained arrange a meeting on the margins of a summit, neither has to explain why it suddenly decided to engage with the other. Both were already expected to be there. The meeting can be presented as routine even when the conversation is anything but routine.
A standalone visit carries symbolism. It suggests a political opening. It invites questions from domestic constituencies. A sideline meeting lets both sides engage without first having to explain the meaning of the engagement.
And for Denmark specifically, the sidelines frame lets the government avoid the appearance of a formal capitulation. If Frederiksen flew to Washington for a bilateral signing ceremony with full honors, the domestic read would be that Denmark had been summoned. Doing it at the UN, on the margins, lets her say this was already on the calendar, we were all in the same building anyway.
For the U.S., the same frame avoids a treaty-style ratification fight. A formal security arrangement with Denmark over Greenland would raise questions about Article Five, about NATO, about congressional approval. Announcing it as a sideline signing keeps it in the realm of executive action.
The label is the diplomatic equivalent of a soft launch. You're shipping the product, but you're not putting up billboards.
And the soft launch is working, because the readouts are already diverging in ways that let each side claim victory. Trump gets to say permanent control. Denmark gets to say sovereignty intact. Greenland gets to say its interests are recognized. Everyone goes home with a sentence they can use.
But the divergence is also the risk. The Atlantic's framing of the whole episode was that it stumbled to an end, and the Danish ambassador in Washington said the outcome depended on whether one person could be swayed. Meaning Trump. That's a remarkable thing for a diplomat to say on the record.
It is. And it tells you the negotiation was not a negotiation in the traditional sense. It was a persuasion campaign aimed at one person, conducted partly in public, partly in private, and the sideline signing is the public artifact of that campaign.
Which brings us back to Daniel's fourth question. Why would sides choose a label that feels belittling? And the answer is that belittling is sometimes the feature, not the bug. The casualness is a deliberate downgrade that gives everyone room to maneuver.
There's also the refusal signal. Declining a requested margins meeting communicates policy without requiring a public statement. The absence of a bilat is itself the news. So the label exists in a system where saying yes or no to a twenty-minute meeting can be a foreign policy decision.
And the system emerged for a reason. The format became routine after the Helsinki process in the nineteen seventies, when Cold War adversaries used the corridors for business their public agendas couldn't accommodate. Before that, summit proliferation after nineteen forty-five had already created the need for smaller conversations inside the larger gathering.
The plenary creates visibility. The bilateral creates possibility. That's the line that keeps coming up.
And it's exactly right. The General Assembly is theater. It's permanent theater, like a building. The annual performance funds the rest of the institution. But the actual work happens in the small rooms.
Let's talk about the small rooms for a second, because the physical logistics are part of what makes the label misleading. Where do these meetings actually happen?
Usually a conference-center holding room, a hotel suite, or a bilateral room set aside by the host country. The UN itself doesn't publish a protocol for margins bilaterals. The host country and the delegations manage them bilaterally. There's no single codified definition of on the sidelines in treaty law. The Vienna Convention recognizes the customary prerogative, but the phrase itself is not defined anywhere official.
That's a genuine finding. The term of art is a term of art precisely because it's not written down. It lives in practice.
And the practice has very specific conventions. The request goes through the embassy or the sherpas. The window is twenty to forty-five minutes. The press spray is thirty to ninety seconds. The notetaker is designated. The briefing book is prepared. The deliverable is scripted.
A U.S. secretary of state will do thirty or more of these during High-Level Week. Thirty compressed bilaterals, each with its own briefing book, its own talking points, its own readout.
That's the part that always gets me. The stamina required. You're doing thirty separate diplomatic conversations in five days, each one a full compressed bilateral, and each one has to produce something.
And the readout is where the real signaling happens. The host delegation's spokesperson briefs the traveling press. The foreign ministry in the capital publishes a formal statement. And the discrepancies between those two readouts are themselves diplomatic signals.
The Greenland case is the clearest possible demonstration. The U.S. readout says permanent control. The Danish readout says sovereignty intact. The Greenlandic readout says security for the Western alliance. Three different documents, three different political audiences, one signing.
So when Daniel asks where this falls on the ladder of importance, the honest answer is that the ladder is two different ladders. There's the protocol ladder, where a margins bilateral is near the bottom. And there's the outcomes ladder, where a margins bilateral can be the most important meeting of the year.
Biden and Xi at Bali in twenty twenty-two. Three hours, on the margins of the G20, and it reopened military-to-military channels that had been frozen. No state banquet, no twenty-one guns, no joint communiqué. Just a long conversation in a hotel ballroom that changed the trajectory of the relationship.
Three hours is not a twenty-to-forty-five-minute window. That's the exception that proves the rule, or maybe the exception that shows the window is a convention, not a law.
It's a convention. The window is what's normally offered. But when both sides want more time, they take it. The schedule is a starting point, not a cage.
And the Greenland signing is interesting because it's not a bilateral at all. It's trilateral. The U.S., Denmark, and Greenland. Three parties signing a security agreement, on the sidelines of a multilateral gathering. The format is even more compressed than the standard margins bilateral, because you're adding a third principal and a signing ceremony into the same window.
Which raises a question I don't have an answer to. Does the signing ceremony itself get a separate protocol tier? Is it a margins bilateral with a signing attached, or a signing ceremony that happens to occur on the margins? The reporting doesn't specify.
And that ambiguity is probably deliberate. If you call it a signing ceremony, you're elevating it. If you call it a sideline meeting, you're keeping it low. The phrase on the sidelines lets everyone choose their own interpretation.
The Venezuelan example from the same week is the contrast case. Waltz called that a pull-aside, not a formal bilateral negotiation. That's a deliberate choice of the lower tier. It signals that the U.S. is willing to talk but not to negotiate. Same physical space, same week, completely different message.
So the UNGA sidelines are a kind of diplomatic marketplace where the currency is the label. Pull-aside, margins bilateral, sideline meeting, informal consultation. Each label buys a different level of commitment.
And the labels are not interchangeable. A pull-aside can be denied later, or described as not a meeting at all. A margins bilateral has a paper trail. The readout exists. The notetaker's record exists. You can't un-have a margins bilateral.
That's the part most coverage gets wrong. They treat on the sidelines as a single category, when it's actually a spectrum from the truly casual to the formally scheduled. The phrase collapses the spectrum into a shrug.
And the shrug is useful. It lets the U.S. avoid saying we summoned Denmark to New York to sign a security arrangement. It lets Denmark avoid saying we were summoned. It lets Greenland avoid saying we were a junior partner in a negotiation between Washington and Copenhagen.
But the sovereignty question is not going to be resolved by the label. The Atlantic piece pointed out that the deal appeared to satisfy all parties but came at a great cost. And Rubio said Denmark accepted it partly because it lacks the defense funds to defend Greenland alone. That's an extraordinary thing for a U.S. secretary of state to say about an ally.
It is. And it's the kind of sentence that would normally be in a readout, not in a public statement. But Rubio said it openly. The casualness of the sidelines label is leaking into the substance.
Because the substance is not casual. The U.S. is expanding its military presence in Greenland. That's a real change to the security architecture of the Arctic. And it's being announced as a sideline event at the UN.
The Arctic angle is worth pausing on. Greenland's population is roughly fifty-six thousand people. That's a small town. And it's the largest island in the world, sitting on the northern approach to North America, with rare earth minerals and shipping routes that are opening as the ice retreats.
So the security agreement is not about fifty-six thousand people. It's about geography. The island is the geography. That's why the U.S. has had a military presence there since the Second World War, and why the Thule base has been a strategic asset for decades.
A formal state visit between Washington and Copenhagen to sign a security agreement over Greenland would be a massive story. The sideline signing lets it happen in the shadow of the General Assembly, where it's one item among dozens.
The General Assembly is the perfect cover. One hundred ninety-three members, two observer states, the European Union. Everyone is there. Everyone is busy. A signing ceremony is just another item on the calendar.
And the calendar is the key. The high-level General Debate runs September twenty-second through the twenty-sixth, then the twenty-eighth. So the signing is happening in the days around that, when the principals are all in New York anyway.
So the phrase on the sidelines is honest in a way Daniel noticed. It's one of those rare moments when the language about how diplomacy works is being truthful. The meeting is literally on the side of the main event. It's not pretending to be the main event.
But the honesty is selective. It's honest about the scheduling, dishonest about the importance. The Greenland signing is not marginal to the outcome of the General Assembly. It might be the most consequential thing that happens all week.
And that's the core tension Daniel is poking at. The phrase implies marginality, but the content is central. The word sideline can itself be misleading. These meetings may take place on the margins of the formal summit, but they are not necessarily marginal to its outcome.
The larger the gathering, the greater the need for smaller conversations. That's the principle. And the UNGA is the largest gathering there is.
Let's talk about the refusal signal once more, because it's the flip side of the coin. If a sideline meeting is a low-cost way to engage, then refusing one is a low-cost way to disengage.
Right. After February twenty twenty-two, Lavrov and Western counterparts repeatedly declined margins meetings. The absence of the bilat was the news. It communicated policy without requiring a public statement.
And the U.S. and Iran at the UN have done the same dance for years. The absence of a sideline meeting is itself a signal. It tells you the relationship is frozen without anyone having to say the word frozen.
So the sideline system is a full grammar. Request, accept, decline, upgrade, downgrade, leak, deny. Each move has meaning.
And the Greenland case is a masterclass in using the grammar. The U.S. gets its security expansion. Denmark gets its sovereignty language. Greenland gets its recognition. And the whole thing is wrapped in a label that lets everyone walk away with their own story.
Until the readouts diverge. And they have diverged. Trump says permanent control. Frederiksen says sovereignty intact. Those two sentences cannot both be true in the same legal sense.
But they can both be true in the same political sense. Permanent control over security is not the same as sovereignty over territory. The U.S. can have de facto control of Greenland's defense while Denmark retains formal sovereignty. That's the fudge the agreement is built on.
The fudge is exactly why the sideline label was chosen. A formal bilateral signing would have forced the fudge into the open. The sideline label lets it stay in the shadows.
The shadows of the General Assembly. Which is a strange place for a security agreement to live, when you think about it.
It's the quiet rooms of diplomacy. That's the phrase that keeps coming up in the coverage. The plenary is loud. The bilaterals are quiet. And the quiet rooms are where the actual decisions get made.
Daniel's instinct that the casualness is a fiction is right, but the fiction is doing real work. It's not just theater. The theater is the point.
The point extends beyond Greenland. Every major summit now runs on this dual system. The plenary for show, the margins for substance. The G20, the G7, NATO, APEC, Munich. The pattern is the same.
The plenary creates visibility. The bilateral creates possibility. That's the whole architecture of modern diplomacy in one sentence.
The architecture is not going away. The number of summits keeps growing. The number of principals keeps growing. The need for smaller conversations inside the larger gathering keeps growing.
The term on the sidelines is going to keep doing this work. It's going to keep hiding consequential meetings inside casual language. And the people who know how to read the label are going to keep having an advantage over the people who don't.
That's the practical takeaway. When you see on the sidelines in a readout, don't read it as a shrug. Read it as a scheduling category with a specific meaning. And then ask what the label is hiding.
Because the label is always hiding something. That's what it's for.
Hilbert: My brother-in-law used to work protocol for a delegation that did these things. He said the worst part was the chairs.
The chairs?
Hilbert: The chairs. You'd get a holding room that was set up for a reception, so you'd have these little gold chairs, and the principals would sit down and immediately be at the wrong height relative to each other. One of them would be sinking into a cushion, the other one perched on the edge. And the whole meeting, the body language is off because the chairs are wrong. He said he spent more time thinking about chairs than about talking points.
That's the detail that never makes the readout.
Hilbert: No, it doesn't. But it's the thing that determines whether the meeting works. He said the good protocol officers would get to the room an hour early and swap the chairs. The bad ones would just let it happen.
The principals would notice?
Hilbert: They'd notice. They wouldn't say anything, but they'd notice. You're sitting there trying to have a serious conversation about security arrangements and your knees are up around your ears because some hotel put out the wrong furniture. It colors the whole thing.
The casualness of the sideline meeting has a physical dimension. The room itself is not designed for the purpose.
Hilbert: That's right. These rooms are not built for bilateral meetings. They're built for receptions or panels or press conferences. And then you wedge a bilateral into a room that was never meant for it, and the furniture fights you.
That's a useful insight. The protocol machinery is formal, but the physical infrastructure is improvised. The briefing book is perfect, the chairs are wrong.
Hilbert: He said the worst was a meeting in a hotel suite where the only table was a glass coffee table, and the principals had to lean forward the whole time, and the notetaker had to write on her lap. Forty-five minutes of that.
This is the meeting that's supposed to crystallize months of preparatory work.
Hilbert: That's what he said. Months of preparatory work, and then you're in a room with a glass coffee table and the wrong chairs. He said the whole business was like that. Very formal on paper, very improvised in the room.
The gap between the briefing book and the furniture is the gap between how diplomacy is described and how it actually works.
Hilbert: He said the other thing people don't understand is the time. Twenty minutes is nothing. You spend the first five minutes on pleasantries, the last five on next steps, and you've got ten minutes in the middle to actually say anything. So the real work is done before the meeting.
The meeting is just the tip of the iceberg.
Hilbert: The meeting is the receipt. The transaction happened weeks earlier, in the cables and the phone calls and the sherpa meetings. The twenty minutes in the room is just the signature on the receipt.
That's why the readout matters so much. It's the only public evidence that the transaction happened.
Hilbert: He said the readout was the part everyone fought over. They'd spend more time negotiating the readout than they spent in the meeting. One side wants the word frank, the other side wants constructive, and they'd go back and forth for an hour over one adjective.
Because the adjective is the signal.
Hilbert: That's what he said. The adjective is the signal. Frank means we argued. Constructive means we didn't throw anything. Candid means we argued but we're pretending we didn't.
The Greenland readout is the extreme case. Permanent control versus sovereignty intact. That's not an adjective fight. That's two completely different sentences.
Hilbert: He said the bigger the gap between the readouts, the bigger the gap between what the two sides think they agreed to. And he said you should always read the readouts side by side, because that's where the real story is.
That's exactly what the protocol literature says. The discrepancy is itself a diplomatic signal.
Hilbert: He said the other thing was, never trust a readout that says the meeting was productive. Productive means nothing happened but they don't want to say so.
Productive is the diplomatic equivalent of fine.
Hilbert: That's right. Productive is fine. Frank is bad. Candid is bad with a smile. Constructive is we're still talking. And warm is we're pretending to be friends.
There's a whole vocabulary of readout adjectives, and each one has a specific meaning.
Hilbert: That's what he said. And he said most people read the readout and see nothing, but the people who know the code see the whole meeting.
The code is the thing. Daniel's question about why they choose the sideline label is really a question about who the audience is. The audience for the label is the domestic public. The audience for the readout is the diplomatic corps.
Hilbert: He said the domestic public reads the headline, the diplomatic corps reads the adjectives, and the principals read the chairs.
The chairs again.
Hilbert: He was very focused on the chairs.
The chairs are the thing that never makes the record, but shapes the meeting. That's a good way to think about the whole sideline system. The formal record is one thing, the physical reality is another, and the gap between them is where the actual diplomacy happens.
The gap is where the Greenland agreement lives. The formal record says sideline meeting. The physical reality is a three-party security signing with enormous implications. The gap between those two things is the story.
Hilbert: He said the gap is always bigger than people think. And the people who know how to read the gap are the ones who actually understand what happened.
The practical advice from your brother-in-law is: read the readouts side by side, decode the adjectives, and check the chairs.
Hilbert: That's about right. And don't trust productive.
The Greenland agreement is going to be productive, I suspect. At least in the readout.
Hilbert: It'll be productive and constructive and warm. And then the two sides will go home and say completely different things about what they signed.
Which is already happening. The signing hasn't even occurred yet, and the readouts are already diverging. Trump says permanent control. Frederiksen says sovereignty intact. The Greenlandic chairman says security for the Western alliance.
Three readouts, three audiences, one signature. The sideline label is doing exactly what it's designed to do.
Hilbert: He said the label is the soft launch. You ship the product, you don't put up billboards, and you let everyone describe the product however they want.
That's the phrase Corn used earlier. The soft launch.
Hilbert: It's a good phrase. He would have liked it. He liked phrases that made the thing sound less important than it was.
Because the thing is always more important than the phrase.
Hilbert: That's what he said. The phrase is the cover, the thing is the story, and the gap between them is where the work gets done.
The quiet rooms of diplomacy. That's the whole episode in three words.
Hilbert: He said the quiet rooms were never quiet. They were full of people arguing about chairs and adjectives.
The chairs and the adjectives. That's the real machinery of the sideline meeting.
Hilbert: That's what he said. And he was not to be trusted.
Why not?
Hilbert: He lied about the chairs.
Of course he did.
The one concrete detail he gave us, and it's false.
Hilbert: He said the chairs were the worst part. Then I found out he'd never actually been in the room. He worked the outer office. He saw the chairs go in, but he never sat in one.
The chairs are a metaphor for the whole system. The person who knows the most about them has never actually used them.
Hilbert: That's about right.
The gap between the briefing book and the furniture, and the person telling you about the furniture has never sat in the chair.
That's the quiet rooms of diplomacy in one image.
Hilbert: He was very good at his job, though. He knew exactly which chairs to order, even if he never sat in them.
The knowledge is real, even if the experience is invented.
Hilbert: That's what I said. And he said the knowledge is the experience. The chairs are just chairs.
The chairs are just chairs, and the sideline meeting is just a meeting, and the security agreement is just a piece of paper. Until you read the readouts side by side and see the gap.
The gap is where the story is. The Greenland signing is going to produce a gap the size of the island itself.
The island is the geography, and the gap is the story, and the label is the cover. That's the whole thing.
Daniel's question was whether the casualness is a fiction. The answer is yes, but the fiction is load-bearing. The whole system runs on it.
The fiction is the point. The sideline label lets the U.S. expand its military presence, Denmark preserve its sovereignty language, and Greenland claim recognition, all in the same twenty-to-forty-five-minute window, all in a room with the wrong chairs.
The readout will say productive, constructive, and warm.
The chairs will be wrong.
Hilbert: They always are.
One thing I keep turning over is whether the Greenland agreement actually holds. The readout divergence is so wide that it feels like the two sides are signing different documents. Trump says permanent control. Frederiksen says sovereignty intact. Those are not the same agreement.
They're the same agreement, read by different audiences. The question is which reading becomes operational. When the U.S. starts expanding its military presence, does Denmark object? Does Greenland? Or does the sideline label give everyone enough cover to let it happen quietly?
That's the open question. The soft launch works until the product ships. Then the product has to actually do something.
The product here is a military expansion in the Arctic. That's not a soft thing. That's bases and infrastructure and personnel. The label can hide it for a week, but it can't hide it forever.
The Atlantic piece called it a fiasco that stumbled to an end. But the end might be the beginning of the real story. The signing is the easy part. The implementation is where the readout gap gets tested.
The implementation will happen outside the sidelines. It'll happen in the Arctic, in the Danish parliament, in the Greenlandic government, in the U.S. Congress. The quiet room was just the opening move.
The sideline meeting was the soft launch, and the hard launch is still coming. That's the forward-looking thought I'd leave with.
The hard launch will have its own chairs.
Thanks to Hilbert Flumingtop for producing, and for the chair intelligence, however unreliable.
This has been My Weird Prompts. Email us at show at my weird prompts dot com.
We'll be back soon.
