Trying to take Greenland has been my deep fear ever since he started talking about it. The possibility of full scale war with NATO powers is a nightmare.
I have this "what if" scenario playing in my mind: what if China announced that they "needed" someplace like Midway Atoll or Hawaii "from the standpoint of national security."
Judging by Mike Waltz’s latest address to the UN re Venezuela, the US has abandoned international law in favour of its claim for hegemony over the Western Hemisphere.
Without a concerted resistance by the rest of the NATO countries, including the possibility of military defence of Greenland and Denmark, there is nothing to stop Greenland being next. The US is ignoring the rights of its own allies. The allies must protest, forcibly if necessary.
Echoes of 1938? Appeasing Trump is not a good idea.
I think one has to consider the consequences of a forced occupation of Greenland.
NATO is probably dead at that point and likely that would be the excuse for Trump to stop doing anything to help Ukraine. Which then leaves the EU in a very difficult position. If they don't help Ukraine then what's to stop a marauding Russian army charging across Ukraine and then into Finland?
If they do help Ukraine then that's likely to be a big pit of money.
Then the British have to decide what to do. Neither option of supporting Trump as he starts new wars in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba or getting stuck in directly in Ukraine look good options.
I don't see any likelihood of a full-scale US vs NATO war. The European powers are likely to make disapproving noises and some token sabre-rattling and that's about it.
The most likely outcome in my view would be US withdrawal from NATO and the EU and non-EU powers having to develop their defence capability as quickly as possible.
I don't see Putin launching a full-scale invasion of Western Europe either. Look how poorly his troops have performed in the Ukraine. That doesn't mean he won't try to nibble away at the edges and he'll certainly try to undermine and destabilise European nations by cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage and the like.
We are all in for a bumpy ride. If Vance takes over from Trump things will get even bumpier.
Sure. Russia tends to go in for long-range bombardment. It gradually wears down opposing forces. It's troops aren't that good on the ground. They'd face a stiff challenge if they were up against the Poles, Swedes or Finns.
That said, the grinding attrition in the Ukraine has given them opportunity to develop greater ballistic capacity.
Please note Sojourner's post has been deleted for legal reasons. Please be aware we are a UK site, on UK servers regulated by the law of England & Wales. We are legally required to remove certain kinds of posts, and lack the resources to defend you or ourselves from prosection if you stray too close to the line.
As I understand it the weapons holding back Russia in Ukraine are bought from the US by Europe but the US is no really funding much of its own contribution
Is there any sort of "casus belli" as it were, for annexing Greenland?
Of course not. But the current US president just seems to operate by asserting what he wants to happen, regardless of whatever laws, agreements, and other civilized frameworks might stand in his way.
Is there any sort of "casus belli" as it were, for annexing Greenland?
AIUI, one 'excuse' might be the need for enhanced security (for the US) in the Arctic, whilst another 'excuse' might be the mineral resources of the country.
The local population of 57000 (or just 30000 according to Trump's lackey Miller) will be 'cherished', says Trump.
@Merry Vole He's offered to buy it but the Danes say it's not up for sale. One might expect the apparent master of the 'art of the deal' to come up with a better offer than one they can't refuse.
But we are dealing with a gangster POTUS.
We're back to the days of 'gunboat diplomacy' and when Britain, France and other imperial powers simply took what they wanted and threatened anyone who got in their way.
The Portuguese didn't move further inland from Angola and Mozambique because Britain threatened to block them if they did.
With all due respect to our US Shipmates I've long said that the US is 'the new Victorians'. The parallels are there. We used to do it because we had the muscle, a whopping big navy.
Trump won't take any European push-back seriously as he knows nobody is going to risk an all-out military confrontation over Greenland and he's not bothered about any chorus of disapproval.
The rest of the world only exists to serve MAGA interests.
@Merry Vole He's offered to buy it but the Danes say it's not up for sale. One might expect the apparent master of the 'art of the deal' to come up with a better offer than one they can't refuse.
Two days after the abduction, it’s clear that Trump wasn’t seeking regime change, at least not in any fundamental way. He’s more like a mob boss trying to expand his territory, believing that if he knocks off a rival boss he can bully the guy’s former capos into giving him a cut of their take.
I recommend reading the rest for a good explainer about how this differs from past U.S. actions.
A "casus belli" according to Trump is Greenland is "surrounded by the Chinese and Russians." In reality it is not.
But I do agree with Paul Klugman's analysis. Trump is acting like a mob boss.
He speaks so his followers know what to believe, there's no sense to be gained beyond that. Paranoia and fear are the motivators, masks worn by greed. It's an interesting monster.
It has been claimed that if Trump had asked Denmark/Greenland nicely they would have been happy to let the US have the necessary bases. Trump's apparent willingness to invade and take over a sovereign state shows contempt for both the sovereign rights of nations and the existence of NATO. In 1939 three 'great powers' were claiming other countries' territory - Italy, Japan and Germany. Now it seems it is three 'superpowers': - USA, Russia and China. Quite a lot of the remaining 190 countries in the world respect international borders. And for good reason: most of the borders of African countries don't make sense, so if this principle is weakened there could be chaos. Perhaps the 'coalition of the willing' needs to expand.
It has been claimed that if Trump had asked Denmark/Greenland nicely they would have been happy to let the US have the necessary bases. Trump's apparent willingness to invade and take over a sovereign state shows contempt for both the sovereign rights of nations and the existence of NATO. In 1939 three 'great powers' were claiming other countries' territory - Italy, Japan and Germany. Now it seems it is three 'superpowers': - USA, Russia and China. Quite a lot of the remaining 190 countries in the world respect international borders. And for good reason: most of the borders of African countries don't make sense, so if this principle is weakened there could be chaos. Perhaps the 'coalition of the willing' needs to expand.
I think Stephen Miller has been quoted saying as much, this is white supremacist imperialism. They live in the myth that it's the great white nations that built all of this, and clearly we should just take what is our due. Europe is failing, so the "logic" goes, for inadequately plundering what is rightfully theirs. It's "white man's burden" all over again. America is the new Great White Nation.
To state the obvious, I find these attitudes disgusting, but I have seen the words of this Stephen Miller and...it fits the actions of this administration. They just want to seize. And I think it's abundantly clear that they think NATO is a joke, which is also an opinion I've heard from folks in the US military from time to time, that they think we're wasting too much money "protecting" countries that should invest in their own defense. It's Hobbesian "everyone for themself."
It will be interesting to see who the new "allies" are. Sadly peaceniks haven't been investing machines of war, so there will be a lag if it comes to that, as happened the last time around. America was losing WWII for a long time before it started winning, if I recall.
I have attempted to post a comment on the new American Foreign Policy a couple of times, but always deleted it. There is a fundamental difference in the Trump's Foreign Policy and the Foreign Policy followed by every president since Truman. Under the old policy, there was the stated purpose of cooperation with allies to protect free markets and promote democracy. The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on. Deal of it is, it sounds very much like the fascist policies of Germany. Miller has long been a white supremacist as well as Hegseth.
CNN released a survey of several polls taken since the Venezuelan action. It shows a sizable majority of Americans are unwilling to support any further expansion into the Western Hemisphere including governing Venezuela, seizing Greenland, or making Canada the 51st state. We are still more concerned with affordability issues at home.
Senator Ruben Gallego is about to submit a war powers resolution forestalling any military incursion in Greeland. War powers resolutions are privileged under Senate rules, meaning Gallego and others can force the chamber to weigh in on the issue. Democrats have previously forced votes to rein in Trump’s strikes against suspected drug smuggling boats and on attacking Venezuela, though both efforts failed. The Greenland resolution may be different in that several Republican senators have expressed opposition to an incursion.
The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on.
I dunno. If the chesterbellocian isolationists are to be believed, the incursion into Veneuela represented an attack on traditional Catholic values as incarnated in the PSUV(*).
Granted, it does appear that Trump is leaning back over to the PSUV as his possible choice for leadership going forward, though if we're going by the conventional wisdom, that's because he's in a tizzy because Machado didn't refuse her Peace Prize.
(*) And, no, the Catholic nature of the regime wouldn't alienate conservative protestants, since the propaganda I've seen emphasises social issues on which Catholics and evangelicals agree.
The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on.
Bullshit. Leaving aside that it’s a bit of revisionist history to claim that the United States was founded on any so-called “Judeo-Christian values,” the only policy that matters to this White House is the protection and expansion of its own power.
When I decided that my foray to the US from the UK might be rather longer term than I originally intended, I completely dismissed the theoretical possibility that the UK might at some future date find itself at war with the US. This is the first point at which I have not been willing to quite so readily dismiss the idea.
If Trump does appeal to 'Judeo Christian values' it's only to curry favour with the religious right.
I still don't see a US vs NATO or UK/EU war as a possibility but I can foresee deeply strained relationships whilst Trump, Vance or other MAGA crowd-pleasers throw their weight around.
If Trump does appeal to 'Judeo Christian values' it's only to curry favour with the religious right.
I think a political-scientist from Mars would classify the overall MAGA ideology as a secular hypernationalism, but with a few Christian themes, images, and, at times, actual policies, sprinkled about to appeal to those who respond to such things.
(And, no, I don't mean that MAGA isn't Christian because it doesn't respect Christ's teachings about social justice etc. The Falangists in Spain and Lebanon didn't much respect those teachings either, but I'd still classify them as more authentically Christian than MAGA, because they incorporated the precisely defined tenets of a certain type of Christianity into their ideology, and appealed to people who had that religion as their primary identity. MAGA, by contrast, hangs a confessionally fluid cross on the neck of its press secretary, and sells bibles that piss of the more learned fundamentalists by putting country-music lyrics on an equal par with holy scripture.)
I have attempted to post a comment on the new American Foreign Policy a couple of times, but always deleted it. There is a fundamental difference in the Trump's Foreign Policy and the Foreign Policy followed by every president since Truman. Under the old policy, there was the stated purpose of cooperation with allies to protect free markets and promote democracy. The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on.
I think this is a category error. Donald Trump does not have foreign policy in the sense the term is usually meant; a series of goals and aims with an outlined set of ways and means to achieve them. What substitutes for "foreign policy" in the Trump administration are the whims of the mad king. He might decide to invade Venezuela, or annex Greenland, or pardon a drug-running former president of Honduras, or use secret police to round up all foreigners in the U.S. (except Elon Musk and his own wives), but none of it is connected to a coherent vision of policy in any meaningful sense. I can understand why people (and negotiating partners) cling to the notion that Trump has a coherent foreign policy, even an odious one, rather than admitting it's just the random impulses of a man sliding into dementia. The idea that your diplomats are negotiating with a magic 8 ball that also has a nuclear arsenal is an even more terrifying thought than the notion that the U.S. is coherently pursuing some narrow and chauvinistic version of "Judeo-Christian values".
It has been claimed that if Trump had asked Denmark/Greenland nicely they would have been happy to let the US have the necessary bases.
First, welcome aboard and thanks for a good first post.
Greenland already has US bases, which are far smaller than in the past. The location of Greenland made it a strategically important place for the Cold War, with bases allowing easier access to patrolling the Artic and North Atlantic. The reduction in US military presence has been a combination of the reduced threat to the US and Europe from Russia (arguably that threat reduction is now reversing) and more importantly the shift from strategic bombers to ICBMs as primary option for nuclear strikes against USSR/Russia. Greenland is no longer needed as an operational base for strategic bombers which would fly across the Arctic to targets in Russia, nor a base for fighters to intercept Soviet bombers crossing the Arctic.
One option for European powers would be to increase operations from Greenland - base more ships and aircraft there to patrol the Arctic and North Atlantic (replacing the US forces that had previously been based there). It has minimal impact on European security (Russian forces attacking Europe are not going to be crossing the areas those patrols would operate in) but would be a telling Trump that Europe was committed to pulling our weight in defending NATO partners. Whether the presence of more European forces, patrol ships and aircraft and their support, would make Trump think twice about moving US troops out of their bases ... but, standing up to a bully usually makes them back off.
My suspicion is that this isn't really to do with the military at all. The fact is that Greenland has a small, basically unprotected, population. The rest of Europe is hours away, and the USA already has bases and personnel on the island. Taking it would appear to be the work of an afternoon, if that.
Strategically it has some advantages, but given that the USA already has Alaska the threat from Russia looks convoluted. Possibly more from China, although I don't really see the advantage they would get from overrunning Greenland.
I think this is all about the money. It's about controlling the North Atlantic, it's about the rare earth minerals, it's about digging for oil in the arctic.
As to any conflict in Europe, it seems to me that the Trump plan is about zones of influence. It seems like Trump believes he should be the strongman in the Americas. There's then a line between Greenland and Iceland which he thinks is the European Zone. This extends around to the Russian zone, which may or may not include all or part of Ukraine.
Then there's a China zone.
I'm not sure how he thinks about the whole continent of Africa, but I assume he thinks India is the regional power who should be controlling Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
As far as I can tell, he thinks that it is the role of the strongman in each zone to keep order and to stop problems extending into other zones.
I think it is also about power and wanting to show that he is dominant over Europe and Canada. He would like to annex Greenland to show that he can, that there is nothing that Europe or Canada can do about it.
This is how the Monroe/Donroe doctrine ties into the American foreign strategy as referenced in above post. Basically, it says the Western Hemisphere belongs to the US, and we can do anything we want to do in it. The rest of the world be d@mned.
I have attempted to post a comment on the new American Foreign Policy a couple of times, but always deleted it. There is a fundamental difference in the Trump's Foreign Policy and the Foreign Policy followed by every president since Truman. Under the old policy, there was the stated purpose of cooperation with allies to protect free markets and promote democracy. The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on.
I think this is a category error. Donald Trump does not have foreign policy in the sense the term is usually meant; a series of goals and aims with an outlined set of ways and means to achieve them. What substitutes for "foreign policy" in the Trump administration are the whims of the mad king. He might decide to invade Venezuela, or annex Greenland, or pardon a drug-running former president of Honduras, or use secret police to round up all foreigners in the U.S. (except Elon Musk and his own wives), but none of it is connected to a coherent vision of policy in any meaningful sense. I can understand why people (and negotiating partners) cling to the notion that Trump has a coherent foreign policy, even an odious one, rather than admitting it's just the random impulses of a man sliding into dementia. The idea that your diplomats are negotiating with a magic 8 ball that also has a nuclear arsenal is an even more terrifying thought than the notion that the U.S. is coherently pursuing some narrow and chauvinistic version of "Judeo-Christian values".
I have little time for John Bolton's overall foreign-policy views(in fact, his dismissal from Trump's 45 cabinet was one of the few times I saw a decision by Trump and thought without qualification "Glad to see that happen"), but I think he's likely very accurate about Trump's overall approach to things. Bolton has remarked that if you were to map out all of Trump's decisions, they would just seem randomly generated and wouldn't form any sort of coherent pattern.
I have attempted to post a comment on the new American Foreign Policy a couple of times, but always deleted it. There is a fundamental difference in the Trump's Foreign Policy and the Foreign Policy followed by every president since Truman. Under the old policy, there was the stated purpose of cooperation with allies to protect free markets and promote democracy. The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on.
I think this is a category error. Donald Trump does not have foreign policy in the sense the term is usually meant; a series of goals and aims with an outlined set of ways and means to achieve them. What substitutes for "foreign policy" in the Trump administration are the whims of the mad king. He might decide to invade Venezuela, or annex Greenland, or pardon a drug-running former president of Honduras, or use secret police to round up all foreigners in the U.S. (except Elon Musk and his own wives), but none of it is connected to a coherent vision of policy in any meaningful sense. I can understand why people (and negotiating partners) cling to the notion that Trump has a coherent foreign policy, even an odious one, rather than admitting it's just the random impulses of a man sliding into dementia. The idea that your diplomats are negotiating with a magic 8 ball that also has a nuclear arsenal is an even more terrifying thought than the notion that the U.S. is coherently pursuing some narrow and chauvinistic version of "Judeo-Christian values".
I have little time for John Bolton's overall foreign-policy views(in fact, his dismissal from Trump's 45 cabinet was one of the few times I saw a decision by Trump and thought without qualification "Glad to see that happen"), but I think he's likely very accurate about Trump's overall approach to things. Bolton has remarked that if you were to map out all of Trump's decisions, they would just seem randomly generated and wouldn't form any sort of coherent pattern.
"Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism Neo-Conservatism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
I have attempted to post a comment on the new American Foreign Policy a couple of times, but always deleted it. There is a fundamental difference in the Trump's Foreign Policy and the Foreign Policy followed by every president since Truman. Under the old policy, there was the stated purpose of cooperation with allies to protect free markets and promote democracy. The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on.
I think this is a category error. Donald Trump does not have foreign policy in the sense the term is usually meant; a series of goals and aims with an outlined set of ways and means to achieve them. What substitutes for "foreign policy" in the Trump administration are the whims of the mad king. He might decide to invade Venezuela, or annex Greenland, or pardon a drug-running former president of Honduras, or use secret police to round up all foreigners in the U.S. (except Elon Musk and his own wives), but none of it is connected to a coherent vision of policy in any meaningful sense. I can understand why people (and negotiating partners) cling to the notion that Trump has a coherent foreign policy, even an odious one, rather than admitting it's just the random impulses of a man sliding into dementia. The idea that your diplomats are negotiating with a magic 8 ball that also has a nuclear arsenal is an even more terrifying thought than the notion that the U.S. is coherently pursuing some narrow and chauvinistic version of "Judeo-Christian values".
I have little time for John Bolton's overall foreign-policy views(in fact, his dismissal from Trump's 45 cabinet was one of the few times I saw a decision by Trump and thought without qualification "Glad to see that happen"), but I think he's likely very accurate about Trump's overall approach to things. Bolton has remarked that if you were to map out all of Trump's decisions, they would just seem randomly generated and wouldn't form any sort of coherent pattern.
I would argue there is one coherent pattern: he will do whatever it takes to accumulate more wealth for him.
I have attempted to post a comment on the new American Foreign Policy a couple of times, but always deleted it. There is a fundamental difference in the Trump's Foreign Policy and the Foreign Policy followed by every president since Truman. Under the old policy, there was the stated purpose of cooperation with allies to protect free markets and promote democracy. The Trump policy is to protect the Judeo Christian values which this nation is founded on.
I think this is a category error. Donald Trump does not have foreign policy in the sense the term is usually meant; a series of goals and aims with an outlined set of ways and means to achieve them. What substitutes for "foreign policy" in the Trump administration are the whims of the mad king. He might decide to invade Venezuela, or annex Greenland, or pardon a drug-running former president of Honduras, or use secret police to round up all foreigners in the U.S. (except Elon Musk and his own wives), but none of it is connected to a coherent vision of policy in any meaningful sense. I can understand why people (and negotiating partners) cling to the notion that Trump has a coherent foreign policy, even an odious one, rather than admitting it's just the random impulses of a man sliding into dementia. The idea that your diplomats are negotiating with a magic 8 ball that also has a nuclear arsenal is an even more terrifying thought than the notion that the U.S. is coherently pursuing some narrow and chauvinistic version of "Judeo-Christian values".
I have little time for John Bolton's overall foreign-policy views(in fact, his dismissal from Trump's 45 cabinet was one of the few times I saw a decision by Trump and thought without qualification "Glad to see that happen"), but I think he's likely very accurate about Trump's overall approach to things. Bolton has remarked that if you were to map out all of Trump's decisions, they would just seem randomly generated and wouldn't form any sort of coherent pattern.
I would argue there is one coherent pattern: he will do whatever it takes to accumulate more wealth for him.
If you include personal glory(not neccessarily renumerative) in there, I'd agree that's probably the pattern. Trump seems like someone who believes he's destined to do great things, but gets his idea of how great things come about from Hollywood movies and TV shows.
What does renumbering have to do with it, Stetson? ;^0
God almighty, I'd love to be able to say that was just a typo, but I did in fact look up the spelling of the word I was aiming for, and could swear it looked like an "n" in the third place. I figured it made sense, because money is quantified by numbers.
Anyway, it's 'cuz o' stuff like that that I try to go easy on people who use "irregardless" etc.
Comments
Some commentators have said (FWIW) that there's very little to stop the US physically invading and annexing Greenland.
Without a concerted resistance by the rest of the NATO countries, including the possibility of military defence of Greenland and Denmark, there is nothing to stop Greenland being next. The US is ignoring the rights of its own allies. The allies must protest, forcibly if necessary.
Echoes of 1938? Appeasing Trump is not a good idea.
NATO is probably dead at that point and likely that would be the excuse for Trump to stop doing anything to help Ukraine. Which then leaves the EU in a very difficult position. If they don't help Ukraine then what's to stop a marauding Russian army charging across Ukraine and then into Finland?
If they do help Ukraine then that's likely to be a big pit of money.
Then the British have to decide what to do. Neither option of supporting Trump as he starts new wars in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba or getting stuck in directly in Ukraine look good options.
The most likely outcome in my view would be US withdrawal from NATO and the EU and non-EU powers having to develop their defence capability as quickly as possible.
I don't see Putin launching a full-scale invasion of Western Europe either. Look how poorly his troops have performed in the Ukraine. That doesn't mean he won't try to nibble away at the edges and he'll certainly try to undermine and destabilise European nations by cyber attacks, assassinations, sabotage and the like.
We are all in for a bumpy ride. If Vance takes over from Trump things will get even bumpier.
Darkness gathers again.
That said, the grinding attrition in the Ukraine has given them opportunity to develop greater ballistic capacity.
Please note Sojourner's post has been deleted for legal reasons. Please be aware we are a UK site, on UK servers regulated by the law of England & Wales. We are legally required to remove certain kinds of posts, and lack the resources to defend you or ourselves from prosection if you stray too close to the line.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
Of course not. But the current US president just seems to operate by asserting what he wants to happen, regardless of whatever laws, agreements, and other civilized frameworks might stand in his way.
AIUI, one 'excuse' might be the need for enhanced security (for the US) in the Arctic, whilst another 'excuse' might be the mineral resources of the country.
The local population of 57000 (or just 30000 according to Trump's lackey Miller) will be 'cherished', says Trump.
But we are dealing with a gangster POTUS.
We're back to the days of 'gunboat diplomacy' and when Britain, France and other imperial powers simply took what they wanted and threatened anyone who got in their way.
The Portuguese didn't move further inland from Angola and Mozambique because Britain threatened to block them if they did.
With all due respect to our US Shipmates I've long said that the US is 'the new Victorians'. The parallels are there. We used to do it because we had the muscle, a whopping big navy.
Trump won't take any European push-back seriously as he knows nobody is going to risk an all-out military confrontation over Greenland and he's not bothered about any chorus of disapproval.
The rest of the world only exists to serve MAGA interests.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has thoughts along similar lines.
I recommend reading the rest for a good explainer about how this differs from past U.S. actions.
But I do agree with Paul Klugman's analysis. Trump is acting like a mob boss.
He speaks so his followers know what to believe, there's no sense to be gained beyond that. Paranoia and fear are the motivators, masks worn by greed. It's an interesting monster.
I think Stephen Miller has been quoted saying as much, this is white supremacist imperialism. They live in the myth that it's the great white nations that built all of this, and clearly we should just take what is our due. Europe is failing, so the "logic" goes, for inadequately plundering what is rightfully theirs. It's "white man's burden" all over again. America is the new Great White Nation.
To state the obvious, I find these attitudes disgusting, but I have seen the words of this Stephen Miller and...it fits the actions of this administration. They just want to seize. And I think it's abundantly clear that they think NATO is a joke, which is also an opinion I've heard from folks in the US military from time to time, that they think we're wasting too much money "protecting" countries that should invest in their own defense. It's Hobbesian "everyone for themself."
It will be interesting to see who the new "allies" are. Sadly peaceniks haven't been investing machines of war, so there will be a lag if it comes to that, as happened the last time around. America was losing WWII for a long time before it started winning, if I recall.
And BTW, welcome to the ship! Nice to meet you.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/06/congress/greenland-war-powers-gallego-00712605
I dunno. If the chesterbellocian isolationists are to be believed, the incursion into Veneuela represented an attack on traditional Catholic values as incarnated in the PSUV(*).
Granted, it does appear that Trump is leaning back over to the PSUV as his possible choice for leadership going forward, though if we're going by the conventional wisdom, that's because he's in a tizzy because Machado didn't refuse her Peace Prize.
(*) And, no, the Catholic nature of the regime wouldn't alienate conservative protestants, since the propaganda I've seen emphasises social issues on which Catholics and evangelicals agree.
I still don't see a US vs NATO or UK/EU war as a possibility but I can foresee deeply strained relationships whilst Trump, Vance or other MAGA crowd-pleasers throw their weight around.
I think a political-scientist from Mars would classify the overall MAGA ideology as a secular hypernationalism, but with a few Christian themes, images, and, at times, actual policies, sprinkled about to appeal to those who respond to such things.
(And, no, I don't mean that MAGA isn't Christian because it doesn't respect Christ's teachings about social justice etc. The Falangists in Spain and Lebanon didn't much respect those teachings either, but I'd still classify them as more authentically Christian than MAGA, because they incorporated the precisely defined tenets of a certain type of Christianity into their ideology, and appealed to people who had that religion as their primary identity. MAGA, by contrast, hangs a confessionally fluid cross on the neck of its press secretary, and sells bibles that piss of the more learned fundamentalists by putting country-music lyrics on an equal par with holy scripture.)
I think this is a category error. Donald Trump does not have foreign policy in the sense the term is usually meant; a series of goals and aims with an outlined set of ways and means to achieve them. What substitutes for "foreign policy" in the Trump administration are the whims of the mad king. He might decide to invade Venezuela, or annex Greenland, or pardon a drug-running former president of Honduras, or use secret police to round up all foreigners in the U.S. (except Elon Musk and his own wives), but none of it is connected to a coherent vision of policy in any meaningful sense. I can understand why people (and negotiating partners) cling to the notion that Trump has a coherent foreign policy, even an odious one, rather than admitting it's just the random impulses of a man sliding into dementia. The idea that your diplomats are negotiating with a magic 8 ball that also has a nuclear arsenal is an even more terrifying thought than the notion that the U.S. is coherently pursuing some narrow and chauvinistic version of "Judeo-Christian values".
Greenland already has US bases, which are far smaller than in the past. The location of Greenland made it a strategically important place for the Cold War, with bases allowing easier access to patrolling the Artic and North Atlantic. The reduction in US military presence has been a combination of the reduced threat to the US and Europe from Russia (arguably that threat reduction is now reversing) and more importantly the shift from strategic bombers to ICBMs as primary option for nuclear strikes against USSR/Russia. Greenland is no longer needed as an operational base for strategic bombers which would fly across the Arctic to targets in Russia, nor a base for fighters to intercept Soviet bombers crossing the Arctic.
One option for European powers would be to increase operations from Greenland - base more ships and aircraft there to patrol the Arctic and North Atlantic (replacing the US forces that had previously been based there). It has minimal impact on European security (Russian forces attacking Europe are not going to be crossing the areas those patrols would operate in) but would be a telling Trump that Europe was committed to pulling our weight in defending NATO partners. Whether the presence of more European forces, patrol ships and aircraft and their support, would make Trump think twice about moving US troops out of their bases ... but, standing up to a bully usually makes them back off.
Strategically it has some advantages, but given that the USA already has Alaska the threat from Russia looks convoluted. Possibly more from China, although I don't really see the advantage they would get from overrunning Greenland.
I think this is all about the money. It's about controlling the North Atlantic, it's about the rare earth minerals, it's about digging for oil in the arctic.
Then there's a China zone.
I'm not sure how he thinks about the whole continent of Africa, but I assume he thinks India is the regional power who should be controlling Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
As far as I can tell, he thinks that it is the role of the strongman in each zone to keep order and to stop problems extending into other zones.
It's basically gangs and mafioso.
This is how the Monroe/Donroe doctrine ties into the American foreign strategy as referenced in above post. Basically, it says the Western Hemisphere belongs to the US, and we can do anything we want to do in it. The rest of the world be d@mned.
Please note: I do not agree with this assessment.
No-one here has you down as a MAGA-lomaniac.
I have little time for John Bolton's overall foreign-policy views(in fact, his dismissal from Trump's 45 cabinet was one of the few times I saw a decision by Trump and thought without qualification "Glad to see that happen"), but I think he's likely very accurate about Trump's overall approach to things. Bolton has remarked that if you were to map out all of Trump's decisions, they would just seem randomly generated and wouldn't form any sort of coherent pattern.
"Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism Neo-Conservatism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
I would argue there is one coherent pattern: he will do whatever it takes to accumulate more wealth for him.
If you include personal glory(not neccessarily renumerative) in there, I'd agree that's probably the pattern. Trump seems like someone who believes he's destined to do great things, but gets his idea of how great things come about from Hollywood movies and TV shows.
God almighty, I'd love to be able to say that was just a typo, but I did in fact look up the spelling of the word I was aiming for, and could swear it looked like an "n" in the third place. I figured it made sense, because money is quantified by numbers.
Anyway, it's 'cuz o' stuff like that that I try to go easy on people who use "irregardless" etc.
It appears Rubio plans to meet with Greenland. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-greenland-european-reaction-9.7036060
Well, yer not gettin' no apologies from me!