Ok so we are at the start of 2025 and suddenly the world seems to have gone completely mad.
(Long) Historical brief
(Jump to the next section if you only want the "meat".)
There was a "status quo", a background against which actions and events could be cast and interpreted. This background was usually called "the international world order" and it had been built in a kind of a protracted "push-and-pull" (or "tug of war" if you prefer) by the powers that emerged at rhe end of the Second World War (WWII).
That International world order was based on the idea that States would try to behave according to a set of agreed-upon rules. Among the most important rules, or the most importantrule was that no state borders should ever be modified by force.
Of course everybody was cheating and trying to get away with it. You had, for decades, coups and assassinations and regime change and insurrections .
And some countries were openly flouting the rules by invading other countries but when that happened, everyone agreed that that was bad and that there should be punishment.
The United Nations played a role as a forum of discussions and finger-pointing and coordination and signaling, but was voluntarily kept toothless.
Once the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, they lost the legitimacy as "co-guarantors" of the World Order alongside the US, who remained the only "unimpeachable" actor that could be trusted to keep its commitments.
That reputation of "World's good guy", the US began to squander in 1996 - 1999 when, under the aegis of NATO, it intervened lopsidedly in the war in ex-Yougoslavia and bombarded Belgrade and openly supported, at great diplomatic cost, the splintering of Serbia and the creation of a new state based on ethnic lines, Kosovo.
The US continued to tarnish its reputation and to squander its "sympathy capital" with the neo-cons "war on terror" and second Iraq invasion justified by the WMD lies.
It kept demeaning it with Obama's extrajudicial drone-killings and the Syrian "red line" that triggered no response.
Fast forward to 2024 and the International World Order, born at the Yalta conference in 1944 (if one wants to find a starting point) was only just hanging by a thread, under attack not only by the usual bad guy Russia with its invasion of Ukraine (after Crimea, after Georgia, after Transnistria) and the eternal mortal enemies of the Middle East, but also by the uncertainty that the brazen declarations of the US presidential candidate, then president-elect Trump were generating - most notably encouraging Putin to attack Europe if the latter doesn't "pay-up".
Everything is now up for grabs
We have entered 2025 with a rapid fire of Earth-shattering public declarations of the man who'll soon be at the head of the most powerful military in the world.
- Taking control of the Panama Canal
- Incorporating Canada as the 51st State
and my favourite... - Assuming control of Greenland.
Now Greenland is an autonomous territory of Danemark, a fellow NATO ally ...
How could the US "assume control"?
- They could simply invade Greenland and take control by force. The President doesn't need Congressional approval to invoke National Security concerns and send the US Marine Corps there. "Boots on the ground". The politics of "established facts". If he does that, what's you gonna do? What's ANYONE gonna do? My bet? Nothing. Everybody will just swallow hard and try to put on a brave face, keep calm and carry on. It will simply be too embarrassing for all the "pigeons" who had thought the US were the "good guys " to suddenly have to admit they were wrong.
- They could try to get the 56000 inhabitants of Greenland to vote for joining the US. Getting to that point might even be done by pretending the world order is still alive (in deep coma, on life support, but still). But it will be very complicated and will take forever, certainly more than 4 years. Given the MO of this administration (and the previous Trump term) it seems unlikely they will take this route.
- They could try to "buy it" from Denmark, mafia-style: "Nice island you got there. It would be a shame if a bunch of Marines were to land and snatch it away from you... so I'm going to make you an offer you cannot refuse...(staring down intensely).
Again, if Trump's past is any indication, it is this third path that is most likely to be pursued. And if you ask me, my guess is that neither Denmark will muster the strength of character to tell the Mad Hatter off.
But what deal to strike then?
Wild ideas
First, if I were Denmark, I'll argue in favour of a 99 years concession rather than an outright sale.
For what annual amount?
Well, consider that the US stands to gain enormously from exploiting the mineral riches of Greenland ...
The US miitary spending is about 1 trillion USD/year ...
The US prints the dollars, so any amount is possible for them ...
Now the Draghi report says that Europe needs annual investment of 800 billion per year to catch up and keep up ...
So here's Sorin's Suggested Retail Price (SSRP) for Greenland:
- 99 years concession for an ANNUAL payment of 800 billion USD into the EU budget.
There. Deal. Everybody's happy.
Hat's off!
Everyone's non-anniversary
Of course after that all hell might well break loose. China will invade Taiwan in short order. Putin will take time to recover and rebuild while looking like the adult in the room, then, a few years down the road he'll send whatever ordinance he can muster over the border with the Baltic States. It will be the whole world's "non-anniversary".
I'll throw a little monkey wrench into this great analysis:
Trump won by 49.9% of the popular vote. That means slightly (ever so slightly) more than 50% of the country voted for someone else. While he acts as though he has a mandate, that's not much of a mandate. If he continues to act like the mad hatter, a big chunk of the 49.9% are likely to be disillusioned, very quickly. Representatives are going to go to their home districts. Not the MAGA districts, but the other ones comprised of people who were desperate for change. It is my guess invading Greenland was not the change they were hoping for.
While Trump is Commander-in-Chief and has enormous power, he needs Congress to do stuff in order to get his domestic agenda through. He needs votes on those things, and stuff like Greenland may cost him those votes.
In two years (a long time!) there are elections. Crazy stuff will likely swing close districts away from him. Of course, he can always try the true autocrat path and just suspend all rights, all ordinary order. I'm not sure what the country would do about that.
Maybe I don't understand anything that's going on (I certainly don't understand how so many people voted for him--except, there wasn't much of a choice), but my scenario is at least plausible. In that scenario crazy does not have carte blanche.
I don't feel that optimistic, but if you live in the US (I don't), you probably know better. I think the grandstanding and bluster is part of what the MAGA electorate expects and what gives them satisfaction.
😇
Neither do I. I'm just hoping for better outcome than seems likely.
In what context did he make all these statements? I wondered since I heard about them, but never looked...
I mean, it's one thing to say, "Well, if Russia takes Ukraine and China wants Taiwan, maybe we should/will take Canada and Greenland and the Panama Canal.", another to say "We will take...". The first one is kind of an aggressive warning, the second one is kind of a mad man talking. Still kind of mad the first one too.
The second one. "We need for national security reasons, we are going to take it." Totally mad.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
The next hotspot is certainly arctic circle. You forget to mention about Canada. US would be more interested in South Canada for easy access to arctic.
I actually have mentioned Canada, it's the second on the list ! 😄
yeah.
Muy bonito ese post, me gusta el circo.
Things are getting crazier and exciting at the same time !BBH
I regret that I am not able to share the "excitment". I see only the madness
Trump is the first Presiden which guilty by the court.