Trump doesn't want use of Greenland.
Trump wants to own it.
Trump has been talking and posting:
"Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership, you don't defend leases. And we'll have to defend Greenland,"
“Ownership is very important. Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.
“NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES, Anything less than that is unacceptable.”
I thought we were being trolled. Would Trump really destroy NATO in order to mark Greenland as ours? Doesn't Trump realize that the Mercader projection exaggerates Greenland's size? Does he realize that Greenland's 50,000 people are essentially on welfare, living on the generosity of Danish subsidies?
Heads up: a movement is gathering to seize Greenland. The Wall Street Journal just nudged the U.S. toward making an American-owned Greenland a reality.
I had accepted as dispositive the feelings of the don't-meddle, isolationist portion of the MAGA base. It combines people like Marjorie Taylor Greene from the populist focus-on-people-here part of MAGA and the educated policy-oriented libertarian part of MAGA, represented well by Reason Magazine. They published this on Thursday.
The article quotes a Quinnipiac poll showing that 86 percent of Americans oppose the U.S. taking Greenland by force. It pairs that with a Reuters/Ipsos poll saying that only a "staggering four percent" of Americans favor it. The tone of the article is that this is the absolute-zero of support, since four percent of Americans in polls will favor even ridiculous, impossible things, i.e. that "human-sized lizards wearing skin suits control the world." Ha-ha. It was an invade-Greenland-don't-be-silly article.
They have better antenna into GOP politics than I do. They see what is underway, and don't like it. They were trying to laugh it off. Too late. Serious people are starting to legitimize Trump's ambitions.
The Wall Street Journal ran this article yesterday.
The article does not argue that the USA needs to own Greenland to cover it with military bases. That does not surprise me. Establishment portions of the GOP support NATO. The U.S. is part of the "Western" consensus of developed countries with the same cultural roots. Establishment Republicans don't want NATO to splinter. NATO buys American weapons. Europeans buy American exports.
A shift is underway, however. The establishment GOP is making the serious argument that Trump does not make. Trump cannot help but communicate that Greenland as a trophy, something new to label, like the Gulf of America, and a matter of Trump vanity. The WSJ makes the case that Greenland is serious business.
Greenland is in the middle of the far-north Atlantic:
Greenland is close to Russian submarine routes:
Missiles, if fired from Russia and aimed at Washington, D.C., go over Greenland:
And this isn't some new-fangled dream of Trump. There is history and precedent. A takeover is almost a fait accompli.
We are seeing a shift in what political scientists call the Overton Window, when an idea sometimes goes from preposterous to normalized to obvious.
Trump moved seizing Greenland from unthinkable to radical and has been saying it often enough -- and with the credibility he has with his base -- that it was starting to be just barely acceptable. The WSJ is attempting to make it sensible. After all, look at those missile routes, and, besides, we already have people and equipment there.
A change is happening in the policy zeitgeist. The GOP is starting to like this idea; maybe Trump is right. The U.S. may need to damage NATO in order to get Greenland, but it will survive because it absolutely needs us, and maybe the trouble is worth it. Europe can defend itself. If Europe wants to defend Ukraine, the Baltic countries, and Poland, it's on them. They can do it if they pony up. The U.S. has a hemisphere to defend, and Greenland is part of the Americas.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
Of course control of Greenland is strategically important when Russia and its allies are the United States' enemy. However, undermining NATO and the European Union would be the biggest strategic blunder of all, if the point is: a)avoiding a bigger war in Europe than the present one; and b) stopping the Ukraine war. From about 1550 through the end of the Second World War, there was a major war among or between European powers about every 50 years. If Europe were left to fend for itself, without active protection from the United States, we would probably once again see European rivalries overtake cooperation among European countries. Rivalries among Asian nations are already a powder keg. World War Three won't work out as well for the United States as the first two world wars did. Let's assume that 1959 was the magical time when America was great, in the MAGA sense. That was because America kept the peace. Let's let Denmark handle Greenland and let's support our NATO allies, like we did in '59.
ReplyDeleteAs a conservative, I oppose Trump's attempt to conquer Greenland. I'm also disturbed by Trump's attempt to conquer the entire world. Greenland is an independent country. If Trump wants military bases on Greenland, then America can lease the land without owning it. Greenland is the frozen-version of Puerto Rico, in that all the inhabitants are on government welfare. Trump wants Greenland not for self-defense, but rather for economic reasons, as Greenland has lots of natural resources, and Trump's corporate bosses want those resources. Democrats wonder when Trump will lose his base; this is the turning point. Trump's ego has gotten the best of him, and now he's concerned about having his name put on every government property. He's also concerned about enriching his friends and family. If Trump is successful in stealing Greenland, then he'll lose his base support, and NATO will be finished. That is what Trump will be remembered for. Destroying NATO to satisfy his ego and pad his wallet. Three more years, and Donnie and his lackeys will be gone. JD Vance can also forget about being the next President.
ReplyDelete“If Trump is successful in stealing Greenland, then he'll lose his base support.”
DeleteYou give his base too much credit. They didn’t care about his sex abuse, his fraud, his coup attempt, his blatant corruption, his masked Gestapo or his military invasion of U.S. cities. Why would they give a rip about Greenland?
F*** NATO and the EU (UK has already led the way on the latter). Might makes right. Greenland would be much easier to take over than Venezuela (like Grenada, Panama, etc.). Maybe you didn’t get the secret memo, but the agenda is to Make North America Great. It’s the art of the deal: make an outrageous demand, then settle for much more than anyone thought was realistic. For example, Trump lawsuits against media companies: Sue for billions and settle for millions.
ReplyDeleteThank you for illustrating what now passes for diplomacy among Republicans. It's working so well for Russia, why not for us?
DeleteGreenland Defense Front!
ReplyDelete