A Grand Strategy Specialist Believes Trump May Have a Point
Are you envisioning a scenario where Canada joins the EU, Russia dominates the Arctic, and China takes control of Latin America? This is the likely consequence of inaction.
TroibNews 
Donald Trump, the current president, has sparked significant diplomatic unease with remarks suggesting Canada is America’s “51st state,” proposing the idea of purchasing Greenland from Denmark, and the notion of reclaiming the Panama Canal to counter China's expanding economic influence in the hemisphere. This raises questions: Where does this ambitious mindset originate? How did Trump’s America First isolationism evolve into what resembles an Americas First mergers and acquisition strategy?
Let’s clarify Trump’s identity: He lacks a self-constructed vision but possesses an impressive ability to detect fear in the populace and leverage it for political mobilization.
Currently, Americans are experiencing fear and anger, coupled with uncertainty about the nation's path and the fierce competition posed by globalization. There is a desire for a strong, confident leader to articulate how America can regain its greatness without shouldering excessive global responsibilities or returning to Cold War-style confrontations with China and Russia.
Navigating this landscape is a delicate task, yet Trump's instincts are sound, and his unique capabilities make him well-suited for it.
There exists a unique opportunity reminiscent of “only Nixon can go to China.” Nixon's groundbreaking recognition of China’s communist government in 1972 surprised the world. He earned American trust for this bold move due to his established anti-communist stance. If Trump, embodying isolationist sentiments, successfully negotiates an expansionist agenda for the U.S. across North America, he could engender trust in his national security rationale that positions the U.S. in a “Race for the Arctic” against China and Russia amid climate change.
Three major global trends currently stand out: the East-West decoupling, an imperative for re-regionalization along North-South lines that seeks to bring production closer to home markets, and an escalating superpower rivalry driving various "races" such as adapting to climate change, transitioning energy sources, and achieving supremacy in artificial intelligence.
Whether one admires him or not, Trump recognizes enough of this dynamic, along with the accompanying fears, to devise a suitable strategy.
His approach to international relations reflects a widely held belief that the U.S. is finished creating a world order shaped from 1954 to 2008. It is now time to adopt a fiercely competitive stance in a multipolar world, shifting from being a generous market-maker to a self-interested market-player.
The world's superpowers increasingly fear each other. There’s a palpable urgency in this re-regionalization and decoupling era, emphasizing a need to seize opportunities before rivals do.
Russia exemplifies aggressive ambitions in troubling ways. Meanwhile, China, currently the foremost global integrating force, systematically reinforces its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative by securing vital supply chains worldwide. India is beginning to follow suit, instinctively resisting China's efforts to weave South Asia into its global value chains while navigating its own ascent.
The United States and Europe, particularly with Trump's potential return, might intentionally drift apart like self-absorbed celebrities whose paths no longer align. Just as Russia attempts to restore its former empire, similar desires may now be seen within Western circles.
Trump has consistently argued that both Europe and Canada “owe” the U.S. substantial debts for decades of defense against the Soviet and Russian threats. He now suggests America is entitled to Greenland as compensation for this strategic debt, asserting that the U.S. could better manage and protect Greenland than Denmark has.
In response, the prestigious British publication The Economist has advocated for the EU, following a significant trade agreement with South America's Mercosur bloc, to invite Canada into its economic union. If such a deal is beneficial for the EU, it raises the question: why wouldn't it be equally advantageous for America regarding Canada and Greenland?
Alongside Alaska, Greenland and Canada represent North America’s "crown jewels" in the context of a changing Arctic landscape influenced by climate change. This warming region contains nearly one-third of the world’s remaining hydrocarbons, along with vast mineral reserves crucial for national security and energy transition.
It’s essential to recognize that Canada and Greenland will require substantial support to confront the aggressive ambitions of Russia and China in this expansive and strategically important area.
Moreover, consider China’s recent rise as a key trading partner and investor in South America. The Chinese are poised to capitalize on vulnerable economies affected by climate change, ensuring that climate migrants fleeing such conditions will likely head to North America rather than China.
We now stand at the precipice of a prolonged period defined as a Zone of Turbulence, as detailed in my 2023 book, *America’s New Map: Restoring Our Global Leadership in an Era of Climate Change and Demographic Collapse*. Global systems and major players are being forced to evolve at an unprecedented pace.
Just as species must adapt due to climate change much faster than usual, globalization is under stress from numerous transformative events — from declining birth rates and rapid aging in the Global North to drought-induced agricultural crises in the Global South and job market destabilization caused by AI advancements, all occurring as the Global South seeks to capitalize on its demographic potential and gain deep global integration.
Previously, globalization's integration largely occurred along East-West lines. However, climate change will drive severe environmental and economic upheaval in the world’s lower latitudes.
The northern regions may build walls to insulate themselves, but the logic of North-to-South political integration will prevail, mirroring the EU's approach in integrating former socialist countries after the Cold War — a proactive strategy to negate long-term disintegration risks.
Crucially, this North-to-South integration serves as an economic and technological competition among Northern superpowers, aimed at capturing the long-term loyalty of the emerging global middle class, predominantly found in the lower latitudes affected by climate change.
This evolution of the global system calls for a strong phase of empire-building. The Tech Titans, the Kremlin, and the Chinese Communist Party recognize its significance, and now Trump appears increasingly focused on this as a means to solidify his legacy: as the real estate mogul who not only improved America but also enlarged it.
This is why we must regard diplomatic posturing seriously: It transcends Trump, climate change, the “Race for the Arctic,” the disparities between North and South demographics, the AI race, and the superpowers' competition for strategic resources.
It encompasses everything, everywhere, all at once.
Successful grand strategy hinges on aligning with historical currents rather than resisting them. That's how to expand influence while denying growth to competitors.
In stark realist terms, we inhabit an intensely competitive environment. By mid-century, we are destined to exist within someone’s proportion of this multipolar world.
Washington must fully embrace the task of shaping that future — integrating as much of it as possible into an American framework of ethos and rules, rather than adhering to alternate systems. The U.S. has been the kernel code for globalization over the past 80 years, projecting principles of free trade, democratic governance, and collective security internationally, now facing strong authoritarian opposition from countries like China and Russia.
The path to ensuring that future is to open the United States to new member states — the ultimate "Trump card" in a superpower brand competition.
Such ambition and accountability will define our patriotism this century: Growing better by growing bigger, as we have throughout much of our history.
While he may express it in bombastic terms, Trump is steering us in a constructive direction. One must consider: do you want a future where Canada aligns with the EU, Russia dominates the Arctic, and China controls Latin America? This scenario will become the de facto outcome of inaction.
Here, Trump’s seemingly outrageous aspirations cut through our current strategic ambiguity: a commitment to embracing what seems inconceivable today to prevent inevitable consequences tomorrow.
This is authentic grand strategy.
Yet, we should also ground our aspirations in reality, considering the proposals we make. Justin Trudeau rightly asserts that Canada will never be America’s 51st state. However, what if it became America’s 51st through 59th states? Would that amount of political power and representation be sufficient for Canadians to choose an alliance with the U.S. over joining the EU? For instance, imagine securing 18 Senate seats and more congressional districts than California’s 52 seats.
That could be seen as a respectful proposition.
Greenland currently has two seats in Denmark’s 179-member parliament. Is that more empowering compared to two seats in the U.S. Senate? What if a $57 billion buy-out package made every Greenlander an instant millionaire?
Does Trump have your complete attention now?
We navigate through unstable and unpredictable times. Yet, the best way to predict the future remains actively shaping it rather than allowing others to dictate the terms.
Trump embodies this approach, showing a keen awareness that America’s strategic future hinges upon North-South or hemispheric integration. While he may underestimate the driving force of climate change behind this shift, he has clearly recognized its most disruptive consequence: mass migration from the Global South to the Global North.
America — and Canada as well — might entertain the idea that we can isolate ourselves from the turbulent future, but that would be a cruel illusion. It would be wiser to extend America’s borders both north and south than to endure that inevitable trajectory — again, embracing the inconceivable to avert the inevitable.
Trump embodies an unexpected messenger for a future that may increasingly resemble Nixon’s role during the Cold War, yet the reasoning behind it is bound to grow more compelling with time.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
Let’s clarify Trump’s identity: He lacks a self-constructed vision but possesses an impressive ability to detect fear in the populace and leverage it for political mobilization.
Currently, Americans are experiencing fear and anger, coupled with uncertainty about the nation's path and the fierce competition posed by globalization. There is a desire for a strong, confident leader to articulate how America can regain its greatness without shouldering excessive global responsibilities or returning to Cold War-style confrontations with China and Russia.
Navigating this landscape is a delicate task, yet Trump's instincts are sound, and his unique capabilities make him well-suited for it.
There exists a unique opportunity reminiscent of “only Nixon can go to China.” Nixon's groundbreaking recognition of China’s communist government in 1972 surprised the world. He earned American trust for this bold move due to his established anti-communist stance. If Trump, embodying isolationist sentiments, successfully negotiates an expansionist agenda for the U.S. across North America, he could engender trust in his national security rationale that positions the U.S. in a “Race for the Arctic” against China and Russia amid climate change.
Three major global trends currently stand out: the East-West decoupling, an imperative for re-regionalization along North-South lines that seeks to bring production closer to home markets, and an escalating superpower rivalry driving various "races" such as adapting to climate change, transitioning energy sources, and achieving supremacy in artificial intelligence.
Whether one admires him or not, Trump recognizes enough of this dynamic, along with the accompanying fears, to devise a suitable strategy.
His approach to international relations reflects a widely held belief that the U.S. is finished creating a world order shaped from 1954 to 2008. It is now time to adopt a fiercely competitive stance in a multipolar world, shifting from being a generous market-maker to a self-interested market-player.
The world's superpowers increasingly fear each other. There’s a palpable urgency in this re-regionalization and decoupling era, emphasizing a need to seize opportunities before rivals do.
Russia exemplifies aggressive ambitions in troubling ways. Meanwhile, China, currently the foremost global integrating force, systematically reinforces its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative by securing vital supply chains worldwide. India is beginning to follow suit, instinctively resisting China's efforts to weave South Asia into its global value chains while navigating its own ascent.
The United States and Europe, particularly with Trump's potential return, might intentionally drift apart like self-absorbed celebrities whose paths no longer align. Just as Russia attempts to restore its former empire, similar desires may now be seen within Western circles.
Trump has consistently argued that both Europe and Canada “owe” the U.S. substantial debts for decades of defense against the Soviet and Russian threats. He now suggests America is entitled to Greenland as compensation for this strategic debt, asserting that the U.S. could better manage and protect Greenland than Denmark has.
In response, the prestigious British publication The Economist has advocated for the EU, following a significant trade agreement with South America's Mercosur bloc, to invite Canada into its economic union. If such a deal is beneficial for the EU, it raises the question: why wouldn't it be equally advantageous for America regarding Canada and Greenland?
Alongside Alaska, Greenland and Canada represent North America’s "crown jewels" in the context of a changing Arctic landscape influenced by climate change. This warming region contains nearly one-third of the world’s remaining hydrocarbons, along with vast mineral reserves crucial for national security and energy transition.
It’s essential to recognize that Canada and Greenland will require substantial support to confront the aggressive ambitions of Russia and China in this expansive and strategically important area.
Moreover, consider China’s recent rise as a key trading partner and investor in South America. The Chinese are poised to capitalize on vulnerable economies affected by climate change, ensuring that climate migrants fleeing such conditions will likely head to North America rather than China.
We now stand at the precipice of a prolonged period defined as a Zone of Turbulence, as detailed in my 2023 book, *America’s New Map: Restoring Our Global Leadership in an Era of Climate Change and Demographic Collapse*. Global systems and major players are being forced to evolve at an unprecedented pace.
Just as species must adapt due to climate change much faster than usual, globalization is under stress from numerous transformative events — from declining birth rates and rapid aging in the Global North to drought-induced agricultural crises in the Global South and job market destabilization caused by AI advancements, all occurring as the Global South seeks to capitalize on its demographic potential and gain deep global integration.
Previously, globalization's integration largely occurred along East-West lines. However, climate change will drive severe environmental and economic upheaval in the world’s lower latitudes.
The northern regions may build walls to insulate themselves, but the logic of North-to-South political integration will prevail, mirroring the EU's approach in integrating former socialist countries after the Cold War — a proactive strategy to negate long-term disintegration risks.
Crucially, this North-to-South integration serves as an economic and technological competition among Northern superpowers, aimed at capturing the long-term loyalty of the emerging global middle class, predominantly found in the lower latitudes affected by climate change.
This evolution of the global system calls for a strong phase of empire-building. The Tech Titans, the Kremlin, and the Chinese Communist Party recognize its significance, and now Trump appears increasingly focused on this as a means to solidify his legacy: as the real estate mogul who not only improved America but also enlarged it.
This is why we must regard diplomatic posturing seriously: It transcends Trump, climate change, the “Race for the Arctic,” the disparities between North and South demographics, the AI race, and the superpowers' competition for strategic resources.
It encompasses everything, everywhere, all at once.
Successful grand strategy hinges on aligning with historical currents rather than resisting them. That's how to expand influence while denying growth to competitors.
In stark realist terms, we inhabit an intensely competitive environment. By mid-century, we are destined to exist within someone’s proportion of this multipolar world.
Washington must fully embrace the task of shaping that future — integrating as much of it as possible into an American framework of ethos and rules, rather than adhering to alternate systems. The U.S. has been the kernel code for globalization over the past 80 years, projecting principles of free trade, democratic governance, and collective security internationally, now facing strong authoritarian opposition from countries like China and Russia.
The path to ensuring that future is to open the United States to new member states — the ultimate "Trump card" in a superpower brand competition.
Such ambition and accountability will define our patriotism this century: Growing better by growing bigger, as we have throughout much of our history.
While he may express it in bombastic terms, Trump is steering us in a constructive direction. One must consider: do you want a future where Canada aligns with the EU, Russia dominates the Arctic, and China controls Latin America? This scenario will become the de facto outcome of inaction.
Here, Trump’s seemingly outrageous aspirations cut through our current strategic ambiguity: a commitment to embracing what seems inconceivable today to prevent inevitable consequences tomorrow.
This is authentic grand strategy.
Yet, we should also ground our aspirations in reality, considering the proposals we make. Justin Trudeau rightly asserts that Canada will never be America’s 51st state. However, what if it became America’s 51st through 59th states? Would that amount of political power and representation be sufficient for Canadians to choose an alliance with the U.S. over joining the EU? For instance, imagine securing 18 Senate seats and more congressional districts than California’s 52 seats.
That could be seen as a respectful proposition.
Greenland currently has two seats in Denmark’s 179-member parliament. Is that more empowering compared to two seats in the U.S. Senate? What if a $57 billion buy-out package made every Greenlander an instant millionaire?
Does Trump have your complete attention now?
We navigate through unstable and unpredictable times. Yet, the best way to predict the future remains actively shaping it rather than allowing others to dictate the terms.
Trump embodies this approach, showing a keen awareness that America’s strategic future hinges upon North-South or hemispheric integration. While he may underestimate the driving force of climate change behind this shift, he has clearly recognized its most disruptive consequence: mass migration from the Global South to the Global North.
America — and Canada as well — might entertain the idea that we can isolate ourselves from the turbulent future, but that would be a cruel illusion. It would be wiser to extend America’s borders both north and south than to endure that inevitable trajectory — again, embracing the inconceivable to avert the inevitable.
Trump embodies an unexpected messenger for a future that may increasingly resemble Nixon’s role during the Cold War, yet the reasoning behind it is bound to grow more compelling with time.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
