> the western premises and good faith leans on the non written law of not taking eachothers land
We’re in the midst of the collapse of the rules-based international order. America ignored it in Iraq and Libya. Russia ignored it in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. China is ignoring it across the South China Sea, Hong Kong and Tibet. (For brevity I’m largely ignoring the Middle East and entire continent of Africa.)
The only ones holding onto the system for dear life are the Europeans, and even there they’re starting to wise up. I’m not thrilled about what’s to come. But it’s clear that just because annexing through force is de jure illegal doesn’t have much bearing onto whether it will happen.
I think control of shipping channels (northwest passage especially), natural deep water ports, and military installations are the main potential values. The oil and gas will likely never have much value, since by the time they’re thawed, the price of both will presumably have collapsed. The rare earth elements and uranium might be nice but bringing in the equipment and infrastructure to do serious mining will takr decades.
I mean, best case possible interpretation is that he meant "sure, if Russia was about to occupy it, we could do that" - avoiding saying "no way" so that nobody can say that he flip-flopped on it later.
In context, with talking about using "economic force" to force a US "unification" of Canada? I'm less likely to give him the maximum benefit of the doubt.
Well the US invaded Greenland when Germany invaded Denmark in WWII and have had a military presence ever since.
The US also engineered Panama's independence in order to get sovereignty over the canal zone, which they completed. And then of course they actually invaded the country in 1989.
Just learned from Wikipedia that the US previously considered buying Greenland in 1867 and actually made an offer to buy it in 1946.
So the idea is clearly not new.
Now, this is Trump so a lot of bluster and unclear what he is actually getting at but in an historical perspective neither this nor (re)gaining control of the Panama canal (which the US only fully relinquished in 1999) are new or crazy.
"Invaded" implies a hostile, or at least forceful takeover.
That's not what happened. In fact its local government reached out to the US and agreed to come under its wing as a de-facto protectorate, which it saw as a preferable alternative to Canadanian/British (and in any case German) intervention.
Ok, they "occupied" Greenland if you prefer although if they didn't have Copenhagen's greenlight it was an invasion. But that's largely semantics and does not address the general point and the fact that the US's interest in Greenland is not new despite Trump being Trump and they were keen to keep it. Even at the time it was not new.
I remember reading Frederick's Forsyth's Fourth Protocol where a Soviet Premier authorized a suitcase nuclear attack on a British base to get swing votes to vote in Labour, use their influence to withdraw the UK from NATO, expel the Americans and their nukes from British bases, and eventually destroy the Americo-European alliance.
In reality, it seems the American administration (both Biden & Trump) is working overtime to damage the cross-Atlantic alliance and the rules-based order better than entire departments at FSB.
Where do I even start?
Threatening the sovereignty of non-hostile states - Panama, Canada, Greenland.
Continuously funding an unpopular war (some say, genocide) in Palestine.
Threatening grievous sanctions against allies for no economically sound reason.
Inviting Putin to "do whatever he wants" to NATO allies.
...to mention but a few.
Quoting De Gaulle: The truth is that the Americans will eventually make themselves hated by everyone, even by their most unconditional allies.
> Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada. But here’s the problem with Canada. So many friends up there, I love the Canadian people. They’re great, but we’re spending hundreds of billions a year to protect it. We’re spending hundreds of billions a year to take care of Canada. We lose in trade deficits.
Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his mind. His overall goal is to lay out grievances and trying to upsell their severity. The end goal is, and always is, to make some kind of "deal". He's a Karen, trying to talk to the manager.
People shouldn't take his threats literally - but you should take them seriously. I don't think the threat is that the US invades Greenland, but that the US uses it as an excuse to try to sour relations with Europe.
Same thing with Panama and renaming the gulf thing. I don't think the US would take over Panama (again). But there is probably going to be a massive effort to get China to stop trading with Cuba and Venezuela.
If someone makes off-hand threats to another while brandishing a gun, that’s illegal (assault) and condemnable. The (soon) president of the US wields nuclear weapons and the most powerful military on earth, his words by default cary the threat of violence. The difference between this and an asshole with a gun is that nobody stands above a president, at least between elections. He has impunity, but he does at least merit condemnation.
Having a gun in your top drawer of your bedside table is not the same thing as holding it in your hand and pointing it at someone. Your analogy is a massive stretch, to say the least.
The Danish government is and has been well under their 2% NATO commitment. I can see a case where in the face of the requirement being moved up from 2%, Denmark may need the money. Lets not forget about the 57K people in Greenland who would love some mailbox money for letting the US exploit their natural resources. The way I see this happening is that the people of Greenland are sold on the idea and the Danish govt. is in the awkward position of trying to stop them, and theres some leverage over them regarding their ability to fund their NATO commitment. Additionally I have a feeling someone is going to have to fund whatever becomes of the war in Ukraine because it seems to me the US is finished.
Your take is dead on but there is a case where we actually do get it done and its not as hard as its being made out to be.
> The way I see this happening is that the people of Greenland are sold on the idea
Since the first time Trump mentioned buying Greenland though, public opinion in Greenland has largely changed in favour of joining the EU instead (while they previously chose not to be part of the EU). It's at 60% in favour now.
> Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his mind.
>People shouldn’t take his threats literally - but you should take them seriously.
So, when Trump talks about possibly using force to annex Greenland or control the Panama canal we all should consider this trolling but you also want everyone to take it seriously. I understand you think you’ve made some nuanced point there, however this is a complete contradiction, if you aren’t aware. The lengths some people go to excuse, explain away and play down this man’s words is quite astounding.
While I dislike the term "fake news" this is a typical example of a lefty mainstream source distorting what Trump said to make him look bad and then declining to link to the original source so as to make it hard to catch them out.
It's hard to be charitable to that comment: it's just pollution. Here's a full transcript of the linked video:
Reporter: Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas you are not going to use military or economic coercion?
Trump: No. I can't assure you - you're talking about Panama and Greenland - no, I can't assure you on either of those two, but I can say this: we need them for economic security. The Panama Canal was built for our military. I'm not going to commit to that. It might be that you'll have to do something. Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country. It's being operated by China. China! And we gave the Panama Canal to Panama, we didn't give it to China, and they've abused it. They've abused that gift. It should have never been made, by the way.
[jump cut]
Reporter: Mr President, back on Greenland. Your position is clear, but have you directed your staff to take a specific action to draw plans, and can you elaborate again. You didn't rule out military coercion and -
Trump: Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes. I've been told that for a long time - long before I even ran - people have been talking about it for a long time. You have approximately 45,000 people there. People really don't even know if Denmark has any legal right to it. But if they do, they should give it up, because we need it for national security; that's for the free world. I'm talking about protecting the free world. You look at - you don't even need binoculars - you look outside, you have China ships all over the place. Your have Russian ships all over the place. We're not letting that happen. And if Denmark wants to get to a conclusion - but nobody knows if they even have any right, title, or interest - the people are probably going to vote for independence or to come into the United States - but if they did do that, then I would tariff Denmark at a very high level.
Reporter: Did you ask your staff to draw plans for acquisition? Are you actively pursuing it?
Trump: No, we're not at that stage, but we have people - I haven't even entered office yet.
Thankyou for linking to a primary source that confirms what the linked article from The Guardian states; Trump did indeed point blank refuse to rule out US military involvement in the control of Greenland and the Panama Canal.
