Why We Shouldn't Ignore Trump’s Discussions About Annexing Canada and Greenland
The president-elect of the United States has a "shopping cart" of properties from other countries, raising concerns among all American vassals. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
**The US president-elect’s “shopping cart” of other countries’ properties should worry all American vassals**
Trump and his team of America’s most straightforward negotiators can come across as amusing. Their demands are refreshingly candid, and their threats are bluntly honest. It’s as if they revel in demonstrating the reality of raw American power: The US stands as the wealthiest and best-armed “mobster family” around, and the new Don appears even more avaricious than Scarface and coarser than Tony Soprano.
Europe, for instance, is coerced to purchase more overpriced LNG from the US or face further economic ruin. Canada is urged to fall in line, any line, or be reminded of a potential land bridge to Alaska. Panama is reminded of its status as a client state, with a warning that the 82nd Airborne may come calling to reiterate this point—without the need for any euphemistic operation names. Denmark is told that while they believe Greenland belongs to them, it’s really under US control, with the implication that intervention could occur if necessary, given concerns over Arctic geopolitics and threats from China and Russia.
All of these targets of Trump’s aggression are, officially, considered “allies” by Washington. Indeed, the aggressive posturing has compelled Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into a precarious situation, proving that a disrespectful approach can topple leadership. The lesson is clear: it may be more secure to be a respected adversary than a disrespected ally.
Yet, Trump’s grievances and demands lack solid foundation. If the US had to defend its position, it would find little support. Canada is a sovereign nation, and the vast majority of its 40 million citizens have no desire to become the 51st state.
Additionally, Trump’s complaints about US treatment at the Panama Canal do not hold up to scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal has reported that claims of the US being unfairly treated are unfounded; American shipping interests are not being financially exploited, and maintenance of the canal has transitioned to the Canal Authority since its handover in 1999/2000. Furthermore, allegations regarding the presence of Chinese troops in the Canal Zone are baseless, much like Trump’s exaggerated rhetoric on the subject.
As for Greenland, while significant legal rights and claims are at play, the US has expressed interest in acquiring the territory before. Greenland has been under Danish control for over 500 years, making it a sovereign nation just like the US, which theoretically should only be able to make requests rather than demands. Denmark has consistently rejected the US’s overtures.
Yet the legal considerations only provide a starting point. Trump, as a real estate developer, often views rejection as a mere challenge rather than a deterrent. Greenland is appealing to him, not just for its strategic position in the increasingly pivotal Arctic region but also for its rich natural resources.
The geopolitical landscape is changing, and US ambitions appear to exploit these dynamics. This may lead to attempts at destabilizing Denmark's sovereignty by leveraging Greenland’s special status to encourage secession, with the intention of furthering an American agenda, all under the guise of supporting their independence.
The broader implications of this approach are cause for concern among America’s allies. The message sent to Denmark is alarming: the US dictates who their adversaries are and expects them to contribute to collective defense interests defined exclusively by Washington. Furthermore, failure to meet these expectations may lead to punitive measures, including financial demands or territorial claims.
This approach exemplifies a strikingly clear application of mafia logic: demand what you want, and if that is not met, invoke consequences. While one might argue this is a continuation of historical US behavior, the blatant boldness of its current expression is especially alarming for allies.
Countries like Germany, which have historically sought US approval by acknowledging their military shortcomings, might soon find themselves on the receiving end of similar demands. Imagine Trump declaring that Germany is not doing enough against perceived threats and suggesting that the US should take control of a “free state” due to its inadequate defense efforts.
This scenario, while seemingly absurd, is not beyond the realm of possibility. The realities of the current political landscape might lead to complacency, as Western European elites may simply accept a subordinate status.This ongoing behavior from the US signals a disturbing trend where once-allied nations face ever-increasing pressure to align their policies with Washington's whims. The implications extend far beyond simple diplomatic disagreements; they threaten the very essence of sovereign decision-making among America's allies.
The case for Greenland is emblematic of this new norm in international relations, where big powers assert their interests under the guise of national security and collective defense. It raises uncomfortable questions about the autonomy of nations that pride themselves on their independence. If the US can disregard the sovereignty of a country like Denmark to pursue its interests in Greenland, what prevents similar actions against other nations?
Moreover, this approach fosters an environment of mistrust among allies. Nations may begin to question where they truly stand in the hierarchy of US priorities. What happens if they become too independently minded or deviate too significantly from US policy? The very act of asserting sovereign choices could be met with coercive tactics, as seen with Canada’s economic pressures or threats directed at European nations regarding defense spending.
This dynamic could create a chilling effect, leading to more countries aligning themselves with US interests out of fear rather than genuine partnership. For Germany, the pressure to ramp up military spending and align its defense policy closely with the US strategy poses a dilemma. The narrative of needing to atone for past perceived failures in military investment can easily shift into a justifiable means to leverage more concessions under the guise of shared defense.
Furthermore, consider how smaller nations in Europe and beyond might react. They may feel compelled to bend to US pressure, sacrificing their own economic needs, national aspirations, and regional stability for fear of backlash. The notion of allyship transforms into a precarious balancing act, where one misstep could result in punitive measures or even loss of support.
Trump's methods are alarming in their straightforwardness: they strip away the diplomatic niceties that often characterize international negotiations. There’s little room for the nuances typically present in statecraft, where intentions, concerns, and historical contexts are thoughtfully navigated. Instead, the transactional nature of this new approach emphasizes force over dialogue and threats over counsel.
This is particularly troubling when viewed through the lens of the rising multipolar world order. As other nations, particularly in Asia and the Global South, begin to counterbalance US influence, the potential for geopolitical tensions to exacerbate increases. If the United States continues to operate under a mafia-like framework, it may ignite resentment and provoke alliances that actively oppose its hegemony.
Other nations watching this unfold may see either compliance as a necessity or resistance as a viable option. The ramifications could lead to a fragmented international system where alliances shift rapidly based on perceived threats from the US, rather than a cohesive strategy grounded in shared values and mutual respect.
For American allies, the warning signs are clear: embracing a puppet-like existence under the new administration could jeopardize their own national interests and autonomy. Blindly following the US down a path marked by aggression and coercion may yield short-term benefits, but at the cost of long-term sovereignty, dignity, and regional stability.
Ultimately, to navigate this precarious landscape, countries must engage in self-reflection about their place in an increasingly aggressive political climate. It is essential for nations to assert their own national interests firmly and to cultivate genuine partnerships that respect sovereignty. Only through proactive negotiation, alliance-building based on mutual respect, and a clear understanding of their own strategic needs can these countries hope to maintain agency in the face of overwhelming pressure.
In this environment of uncertainty and harsh methods, the very fabric of international diplomacy is at stake. What is needed now is an international community willing to stand firm against coercive tactics, fostering a new understanding of allyship grounded in respect and shared principles rather than fear and subjugation. It is a challenging path forward, but one that is essential for a future where nations can collaborate based on equity, not intimidation.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
Trump and his team of America’s most straightforward negotiators can come across as amusing. Their demands are refreshingly candid, and their threats are bluntly honest. It’s as if they revel in demonstrating the reality of raw American power: The US stands as the wealthiest and best-armed “mobster family” around, and the new Don appears even more avaricious than Scarface and coarser than Tony Soprano.
Europe, for instance, is coerced to purchase more overpriced LNG from the US or face further economic ruin. Canada is urged to fall in line, any line, or be reminded of a potential land bridge to Alaska. Panama is reminded of its status as a client state, with a warning that the 82nd Airborne may come calling to reiterate this point—without the need for any euphemistic operation names. Denmark is told that while they believe Greenland belongs to them, it’s really under US control, with the implication that intervention could occur if necessary, given concerns over Arctic geopolitics and threats from China and Russia.
All of these targets of Trump’s aggression are, officially, considered “allies” by Washington. Indeed, the aggressive posturing has compelled Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into a precarious situation, proving that a disrespectful approach can topple leadership. The lesson is clear: it may be more secure to be a respected adversary than a disrespected ally.
Yet, Trump’s grievances and demands lack solid foundation. If the US had to defend its position, it would find little support. Canada is a sovereign nation, and the vast majority of its 40 million citizens have no desire to become the 51st state.
Additionally, Trump’s complaints about US treatment at the Panama Canal do not hold up to scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal has reported that claims of the US being unfairly treated are unfounded; American shipping interests are not being financially exploited, and maintenance of the canal has transitioned to the Canal Authority since its handover in 1999/2000. Furthermore, allegations regarding the presence of Chinese troops in the Canal Zone are baseless, much like Trump’s exaggerated rhetoric on the subject.
As for Greenland, while significant legal rights and claims are at play, the US has expressed interest in acquiring the territory before. Greenland has been under Danish control for over 500 years, making it a sovereign nation just like the US, which theoretically should only be able to make requests rather than demands. Denmark has consistently rejected the US’s overtures.
Yet the legal considerations only provide a starting point. Trump, as a real estate developer, often views rejection as a mere challenge rather than a deterrent. Greenland is appealing to him, not just for its strategic position in the increasingly pivotal Arctic region but also for its rich natural resources.
The geopolitical landscape is changing, and US ambitions appear to exploit these dynamics. This may lead to attempts at destabilizing Denmark's sovereignty by leveraging Greenland’s special status to encourage secession, with the intention of furthering an American agenda, all under the guise of supporting their independence.
The broader implications of this approach are cause for concern among America’s allies. The message sent to Denmark is alarming: the US dictates who their adversaries are and expects them to contribute to collective defense interests defined exclusively by Washington. Furthermore, failure to meet these expectations may lead to punitive measures, including financial demands or territorial claims.
This approach exemplifies a strikingly clear application of mafia logic: demand what you want, and if that is not met, invoke consequences. While one might argue this is a continuation of historical US behavior, the blatant boldness of its current expression is especially alarming for allies.
Countries like Germany, which have historically sought US approval by acknowledging their military shortcomings, might soon find themselves on the receiving end of similar demands. Imagine Trump declaring that Germany is not doing enough against perceived threats and suggesting that the US should take control of a “free state” due to its inadequate defense efforts.
This scenario, while seemingly absurd, is not beyond the realm of possibility. The realities of the current political landscape might lead to complacency, as Western European elites may simply accept a subordinate status.This ongoing behavior from the US signals a disturbing trend where once-allied nations face ever-increasing pressure to align their policies with Washington's whims. The implications extend far beyond simple diplomatic disagreements; they threaten the very essence of sovereign decision-making among America's allies.
The case for Greenland is emblematic of this new norm in international relations, where big powers assert their interests under the guise of national security and collective defense. It raises uncomfortable questions about the autonomy of nations that pride themselves on their independence. If the US can disregard the sovereignty of a country like Denmark to pursue its interests in Greenland, what prevents similar actions against other nations?
Moreover, this approach fosters an environment of mistrust among allies. Nations may begin to question where they truly stand in the hierarchy of US priorities. What happens if they become too independently minded or deviate too significantly from US policy? The very act of asserting sovereign choices could be met with coercive tactics, as seen with Canada’s economic pressures or threats directed at European nations regarding defense spending.
This dynamic could create a chilling effect, leading to more countries aligning themselves with US interests out of fear rather than genuine partnership. For Germany, the pressure to ramp up military spending and align its defense policy closely with the US strategy poses a dilemma. The narrative of needing to atone for past perceived failures in military investment can easily shift into a justifiable means to leverage more concessions under the guise of shared defense.
Furthermore, consider how smaller nations in Europe and beyond might react. They may feel compelled to bend to US pressure, sacrificing their own economic needs, national aspirations, and regional stability for fear of backlash. The notion of allyship transforms into a precarious balancing act, where one misstep could result in punitive measures or even loss of support.
Trump's methods are alarming in their straightforwardness: they strip away the diplomatic niceties that often characterize international negotiations. There’s little room for the nuances typically present in statecraft, where intentions, concerns, and historical contexts are thoughtfully navigated. Instead, the transactional nature of this new approach emphasizes force over dialogue and threats over counsel.
This is particularly troubling when viewed through the lens of the rising multipolar world order. As other nations, particularly in Asia and the Global South, begin to counterbalance US influence, the potential for geopolitical tensions to exacerbate increases. If the United States continues to operate under a mafia-like framework, it may ignite resentment and provoke alliances that actively oppose its hegemony.
Other nations watching this unfold may see either compliance as a necessity or resistance as a viable option. The ramifications could lead to a fragmented international system where alliances shift rapidly based on perceived threats from the US, rather than a cohesive strategy grounded in shared values and mutual respect.
For American allies, the warning signs are clear: embracing a puppet-like existence under the new administration could jeopardize their own national interests and autonomy. Blindly following the US down a path marked by aggression and coercion may yield short-term benefits, but at the cost of long-term sovereignty, dignity, and regional stability.
Ultimately, to navigate this precarious landscape, countries must engage in self-reflection about their place in an increasingly aggressive political climate. It is essential for nations to assert their own national interests firmly and to cultivate genuine partnerships that respect sovereignty. Only through proactive negotiation, alliance-building based on mutual respect, and a clear understanding of their own strategic needs can these countries hope to maintain agency in the face of overwhelming pressure.
In this environment of uncertainty and harsh methods, the very fabric of international diplomacy is at stake. What is needed now is an international community willing to stand firm against coercive tactics, fostering a new understanding of allyship grounded in respect and shared principles rather than fear and subjugation. It is a challenging path forward, but one that is essential for a future where nations can collaborate based on equity, not intimidation.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
