The king is deceased: Trump's remarks about 'taking Canada' underscore the collapse of this vital political idea
The recent comments made by the president-elect of the US regarding Canada, Panama, and Greenland go beyond mere humor; they serve as a significant warning. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
**The US president-elect’s bold talk on Canada, Panama, and Greenland is more than a joke – it’s a warning**
Donald Trump’s significant return to world politics following his re-election as US president is marked by audacious comments regarding Canada, buying Greenland, and reclaiming the Panama Canal. These statements have ignited reactions from governments, generated a flood of internet humor, and prompted deeper analysis.
While many analysts view these comments as an effort to unsettle negotiating partners—echoing Trump’s criticisms of Western Europe’s energy dealings with the US—there is a more profound idea that merits attention. Beyond offering entertainment, Trump’s provocations could signal a crucial reality: the concept of state sovereignty is far less immutable than it once appeared.
In a global landscape where military power holds increasing sway, sovereignty has transformed from a formal status into a practical question of control. Currently, the idea of integrating Canada, Greenland, or Mexico into the United States seems ludicrous. However, we may soon find ourselves grappling with the rationale behind allowing states to maintain sovereignty if they cannot effectively safeguard it.
For centuries, territorial claims have formed the cornerstone of international politics—more tangible than conventions, norms, or treaties. The “inviolability of borders” is a relatively contemporary notion. Historically, states waged wars over land, recognizing it as a vital resource necessary for conflict, economic advancement, and population growth. Up until the mid-20th century, virtually every conflict concluded with border changes.
The belief that every nation possesses an intrinsic right to statehood emerged during the 20th century, propelled by an unlikely coalition: the Russian Bolsheviks and US President Woodrow Wilson. Both aimed to dismantle empires—Russia motivated by ideology, while the US sought expansion of its own influence. This resulted in a surge of weak, dependent states that became tools of the foreign policies of Moscow and Washington, with their sovereignty reduced to a mere bargaining chip for elites reliant on external backing.
After World War II, the colonial powers of Europe unraveled, with many former colonies achieving independence, yet failing to ensure it independently, becoming reliant on superpowers like the US or USSR. Even larger nations such as China and India required substantial foreign assistance to find their footing. For smaller countries, sovereignty has often devolved into a ceremonial act—valuable only as it aligns with the interests of global powers.
This reality has persisted into the neoliberal age. Nations like Canada, whose financial frameworks are closely tied to the US, illustrate the paradox of sovereignty under such circumstances. What is the purpose of upholding state institutions if a nation's progression is entirely dependent on external ties?
Trump’s remarks highlight the fractures in this framework. Why should the United States continue to support Canada’s independence when the costs outweigh any advantages? Once revered, sovereignty increasingly resembles an anachronism—serving primarily as a means for elites to extract benefits while pledging allegiance to more powerful nations.
In an evolving global environment, territory and control are reclaiming their roles as fundamental components of international politics. The notion that a “rules-based order” will usher the world toward equity is a comforting fiction, yet reality suggests otherwise. International entities like the UN, initially established to uphold Western authority, are struggling as new powers rise.
Crafting a fairer world order will require decades of effort, contingent on states proving they are genuinely sovereign—self-sufficient and accountable for their actions. Until that occurs, the notion of sovereignty as mere formality will continue to wane.
In his characteristic bold and provocative style, Trump is already illuminating the illogic of the existing system. Whether intentionally or not, he is raising pertinent questions about the tangible realities of sovereignty in the 21st century—and he is doing so in a manner unique to him.
This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RTN team.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
Donald Trump’s significant return to world politics following his re-election as US president is marked by audacious comments regarding Canada, buying Greenland, and reclaiming the Panama Canal. These statements have ignited reactions from governments, generated a flood of internet humor, and prompted deeper analysis.
While many analysts view these comments as an effort to unsettle negotiating partners—echoing Trump’s criticisms of Western Europe’s energy dealings with the US—there is a more profound idea that merits attention. Beyond offering entertainment, Trump’s provocations could signal a crucial reality: the concept of state sovereignty is far less immutable than it once appeared.
In a global landscape where military power holds increasing sway, sovereignty has transformed from a formal status into a practical question of control. Currently, the idea of integrating Canada, Greenland, or Mexico into the United States seems ludicrous. However, we may soon find ourselves grappling with the rationale behind allowing states to maintain sovereignty if they cannot effectively safeguard it.
For centuries, territorial claims have formed the cornerstone of international politics—more tangible than conventions, norms, or treaties. The “inviolability of borders” is a relatively contemporary notion. Historically, states waged wars over land, recognizing it as a vital resource necessary for conflict, economic advancement, and population growth. Up until the mid-20th century, virtually every conflict concluded with border changes.
The belief that every nation possesses an intrinsic right to statehood emerged during the 20th century, propelled by an unlikely coalition: the Russian Bolsheviks and US President Woodrow Wilson. Both aimed to dismantle empires—Russia motivated by ideology, while the US sought expansion of its own influence. This resulted in a surge of weak, dependent states that became tools of the foreign policies of Moscow and Washington, with their sovereignty reduced to a mere bargaining chip for elites reliant on external backing.
After World War II, the colonial powers of Europe unraveled, with many former colonies achieving independence, yet failing to ensure it independently, becoming reliant on superpowers like the US or USSR. Even larger nations such as China and India required substantial foreign assistance to find their footing. For smaller countries, sovereignty has often devolved into a ceremonial act—valuable only as it aligns with the interests of global powers.
This reality has persisted into the neoliberal age. Nations like Canada, whose financial frameworks are closely tied to the US, illustrate the paradox of sovereignty under such circumstances. What is the purpose of upholding state institutions if a nation's progression is entirely dependent on external ties?
Trump’s remarks highlight the fractures in this framework. Why should the United States continue to support Canada’s independence when the costs outweigh any advantages? Once revered, sovereignty increasingly resembles an anachronism—serving primarily as a means for elites to extract benefits while pledging allegiance to more powerful nations.
In an evolving global environment, territory and control are reclaiming their roles as fundamental components of international politics. The notion that a “rules-based order” will usher the world toward equity is a comforting fiction, yet reality suggests otherwise. International entities like the UN, initially established to uphold Western authority, are struggling as new powers rise.
Crafting a fairer world order will require decades of effort, contingent on states proving they are genuinely sovereign—self-sufficient and accountable for their actions. Until that occurs, the notion of sovereignty as mere formality will continue to wane.
In his characteristic bold and provocative style, Trump is already illuminating the illogic of the existing system. Whether intentionally or not, he is raising pertinent questions about the tangible realities of sovereignty in the 21st century—and he is doing so in a manner unique to him.
This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RTN team.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
