Trump says no, he’s not going to attack Greenland:
President Donald Trump told the World Economic Forum that he won’t use force to take Greenland from Denmark.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” Trump said, reported by Politico. “That’s probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force.”
Trump also reinforced that him wanting Greenland has nothing to do with power or greed.
It has to do with protection:
“We want a piece of ice for world protection… We’ve never asked for anything else—and we could have kept that piece of land, and we didn’t. So, they have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
The reference is to Golden Dome.
I tend to assume that Trump is very strategic and tactical, even when it sounds like he’s impulsively mouthing off. That doesn’t always mean the mouthing off works as planned. Sometimes it doesn’t, although more often it has. Was his previous insinuation that maybe he would use force a tactical feint? I think probably, to make the alternative – negotiating and ultimately giving in – seem better to the Europeans. Was it counterproductive? I don’t know.
Much-appreciated longtime commenter “Paolo Pagliaro” gave the view from Italy yesterday, before Trump backed off on the consideration of using force:
You can bet that “Trump’s mild saber-rattling about Greenland gives his enemies ammunition for stirring up fear.”
Promising to get your hands on a land legitimately belonging to another country who did nothing to you, and with which you could entertain any kind of joint collaboration, resorting to bullying from the beginning, is not a great strategy to win consensus and trust, to say the least.The vast, vast majority of the people here in Europe is now convinced that Trump is a deranged buffoon bent on destroying everything in order to appease his ego: the media is immensely partisan, but why should they think differently? No one is normally interested in spending time understanding what’s really happening in the US, if the PotUS never tries to be diplomatic and his standard approach is “if you don’t obey I will punish you, because I only do my interests”.
On Greenland Trump is simply wrong: you can have all the legit reason to desire this land, but once you assert your **right** to it just because you are interested, what can you say to China or any Communist regime?
Of course, as Paolo indicates, most of Europe and the European press probably already think Trump is “a deranged buffon bent on destroying everything in order to appease his ego.” So perhaps his initial hint at using force over Greenland doesn’t matter because they already detest and fear him quite enough. What was it that Machiavelli (another Italian) wrote – that if you can’t be both loved and feared, it’s better to be feared than loved. I imagine Trump has taken that counsel to heart.
At any rate, his explanation makes sense – at least to me. I make no predictions about what will happen in subsequent negotiations.
[NOTE: This has little to do with the post, but it has to do with Greenland.
I once was coming back from Europe and flew over Greenland on a very clear day. It was exceptionally beautiful, with the icebergs sparkling in the sun.
And this song comes to mind:
