I’m going to repeat myself in criticizing President Trump’s remarks on Greenland. I think his Bronx bully routine is not just foolhardy it’s actually counterproductive because of its tonedeafness. Experience suggests that the surest way of getting Danes to dig in their heels is to try to bully them.
That said I find the reactions of miscellaneous European countries to Trump’s bullying is far-fetched. As Marc Champion observed at Bloomberg does anyone seriously think that the Baltic countries would abandon the security umbrella they receive from U. S. participation in NATO for Denmark?
I think there’s one more factor to consider. If Trump does manage to fracture the NATO alliance, the first casualty would undoubtedly be Ukraine. In the absence of NATO allies declaiming that Ukraine is just the first bite being taken by the Russian bear, our interests in Ukraine are quite abstract: rule of law, the principle of self-determination, rejection of one country invading another.
My theory is Trump’s fallen to the risk if the Venezuela operation went well (which it did). Which is to let it get into his head and vastly overreach.
He got his oats and he pressed on Iran, even setting a red line. This was even through Iran was different to anyone who is observant, and predictably his red line got crossed. And then to distract from the fact he set a red line and watched it blow up in his face, he distracts by creating a crisis over Greenland. His threat to impose tariffs on European countries over Greenland is the rare issue where Republicans would likely support revoking utilizing IEEPA to impose such tariffs, overriding a Presidental veto. And if that happens, the pile on to kill all other tariffs would render Trump’s economic policy a nullity.
Trump seems to have forgotten he is only 2 Congressman and 20 Senators from being removed from office — and Greenland is in the rare set of issues which could get Trump a 2/3 majority in the Senate against him. Someone was remarking at the beginning of the term that focusing on 80/20 issues is a good way to demoralize Democrats — emphasizing 20/80 issues is a good way for get Republican congressman to abandon Trump.
Some other thoughts; is there an analogy with acquiring Greenland and subsequently increasing domestic tensions like acquiring Texas and the Mexico Cession indirectly lead to the Civil War. Are there things to acquiring Greenland that cannot be achieved by cooperating with Denmark and Greenlanders?
Also, at the beginning of the term, the worry was that Trump would try to leave NATO; now I think most European countries and Canada are thinking if or when they can leave. Trump may have found the cheat code around Congress’s prohibition on the US leaving NATO.
When 9/11 happened NATO countries responded and were actually pretty helpful. Adjusted for population Denmark sent close to the same number of troops as the US and had more deaths than any other country. We are going to lose that support. Worse, they dont really have to trade with the US.
Steve
If the issue is having military bases on Greenland we had a bunch of them until we voluntarily shut them down when the USSR came apart. We have an open treaty that lets us build more if we want. We can already mine there if we want. We dont need to own Greenland as it offers us little advantage to do so. We risk losing countries that have been allies or very cooperative with us.
Query- I dont really buy the idea that NATO was the deciding factor in Russia deciding to invade Ukraine but lets go with that theory. If all of the NATO nations re-arm because they split with the US how does Russia feel about having larger, well armed and able armies with re-supply actually sitting on its orders or close enough it makes little difference. Do they back off or get more aggressive?
Steve
If I’m not mistaken most of Denmark’s trade is within the EU. They’re the “butter and egg men” of Europe.
I think that Russia’s policy will be what it has been for the last 200 years. They want neutral buffers against invasion from foreign enemies and to maintain their own territorial integrity. I recognize you disagree with that and believe they are expansionary.
They are expansionary in that they want to take back their old empire. I have no idea if they want more. I also think there were significant economic incentives since the Russian economy had cooled off and Russia was losing influence in Ukraine and other neighbors.
Steve
That’s irredentist which is what I’ve been saying for decades.
That’s not good for Ukraine, Georgia, or the Baltics but it is no threat to the original NATO countries. It’s a threat to Poland’s own irredentism.
So Trump TACO’ed? Lets see what this framework agreement is — probably exactly what Denmark already offered but dressed up as a win of sorts?
That would be my bet.