I went down the Greenland rabbit hole today after reading your CG post on that topic. Here’s some of what I learned (with help from ChatGPT) that I thought you might find interesting.
The company holding the exploration license for the Kvanefjeld Rare Earths project in Greenland is Energy Transition Minerals Ltd (ETM), a publicly traded Australian company. They are a very small (28 employees) resource exploration company and have been active in Greenland for over a decade.
Their most recent annual report mentions that they’ve discovered what they believe is “one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements (REEs)”—estimated at around 1 billion tonnes.
The company claims it was granted an exploitation license by the Greenland government, but progress on the project had halted due to a 2021 law passed by Greenland’s legislature banning the extraction of uranium ore. Since the rare earths in the Kvanefjeld deposit are mixed with uranium ore in concentrations above the allowable limits, Greenland with Danish support has effectively blocked further development.
In response, ETM has filed a lawsuit against Greenland and Denmark in the International Arbitration Court in Copenhagen.
If ETM loses in court, they’re likely finished, as the company only has one other project—a lithium deal in southern Spain. But if they win, Greenland (and Denmark) may be faced with two bad choices: either let the project proceed or pay EMT damages. Regardless of what Greenland and Denmark decide under such circumstances, ETM and its Chinese strategic partner would stand to win big.
To give you an idea of what’s a stake financially, ETM claims it has invested $150 million in the project, but their lawsuit seeks $11.5 billion in damages. The damage claim is certainly inflated, but it’s important to note it does not include the profit potential of the downstream activities to be controlled by their Chinese partner.
Speaking of the Chinese partner: ETM’s “strategic partner” is Shenghe Resources, a Chinese rare earth company, acquired a 12.5% stake in Greenland Minerals about a decade ago for just $3.5 million. Shenghe is slated to process all the ores extracted from the Kvanefjeld deposit, thus consolidating Chinese dominance in the REE processing well into the future.
Here’s the kicker: controlling the downstream processing of these rare earth elements also means controlling their marketing. As you know, China already dominates the global REE market. If they gain exclusive access to what ETM’s chair, Sara Kelly, describes as “one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements,” it would, she tells her shareholders, “fundamentally change the balance of the global REE market”. She’s obviously pitching her shareholders for their continued support, but from a geopolitical perspective I don’t think she is far off the mark.
(I can send you a ChatGPT summary of ETM’s legal action against Greenland and Denmark if you’re interested. The text of the EMT complaint is not available from public sources, but is available directly from EMT.)
Now, let’s consider the outcomes.
Without Trump in the picture, most of this might have flown totally under the radar. If ETM’s claims were dismissed, the bliss of our ignorance would have continued. EMT would have quietly gone bankrupt (they reportedly have enough cash to last two more years, which is how long the arbitration process might take). For the Chinese, a loss at arbitration might have stung, but they would still dominate the REE market globally. Meanwhile, Denmark would have continued subsidizing Greenland’s economy (to the tune of ~$600 million annually), and life above the Arctic Circle would go on much as it has for centuries.
On the other hand, had EMT prevailed and the public remained unaware of Chinese efforts to insinuate themselves into Greenland’s mineral development, we might have woken up in a few years with China’s dominance in global REE markets raised to yet a higher, perhaps insurmountable level.
But with Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland and its strategic importance, the stakes are now apparent. A deal involving the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark could dramatically shift the balance of power.
While an outright purchase of Greenland is probably not in the cards, imagine an outcome where Greenland achieves national sovereignty under a commonwealth or condominium arrangement with both the U.S. and Denmark—similar to the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 governing Spitzbergen. The U.S. would provide financial and security guarantees, strengthening Greenland’s independence.
If ETM’s claim were denied under such circumstances, Greenland could still leverage its rare earth deposits with a new, globally-powerful, deep-pocketed partner (the U.S.) committed to their long-term security and economic stability. If ETM won, Denmark would no longer face the dilemma of choosing between paying $11.5 billion or ceding strategic ground to China. The U.S. would likely cover any costs of any damage award to eliminate Chinese influence in Greenland and disrupt China’s global REE monopoly. China would lose big, while Australia gains from the legal success of ETM and its shareholders.
While it’s fun to joke about Trump’s antics, the stakes involved in a deal with Greenland/Denmark are very real. Without Trump’s reemergence on this issue, we might have woken up in a few years in a much worse strategic position than we are today. Whatever deal ultimately emerges between Nuuk, Copenhagen and Washington, it will likely be better than what we might have happened had Mrs. Harris taken the helm.
Scott, I assure you this wasn't flying under the radar of the Defense Department. All of this is extremely well-known to the people who are supposed to know about it. They didn't need Trump to bring it to their attention. They know, and they have known, of Greenland's strategic significance for a very long time: the US invoked the Monroe Doctrine and occupied Greenland during World War II to prevent Germany from using it (Germany was occupying Denmark). And I *guarantee* you they're well aware of the strategically critical minerals there, as well as China's interest in them.
What Trump has succeeded in doing is profoundly alienating both Denmark and Greenland--on whom we are *very* dependent, strategically. That dependence was not a problem whatsoever, given how closely allied we were and still are, on paper. But Trump has forced Denmark to take seriously the possibility that the United States--its ally since the Second World War--could actually invade sovereign territory. They are having ministerial meetings with the highest level right now trying to figure out how to respond to this--and because Denmark is in the EU, so is the entire European Union. As if this was what they needed to worry about right now. (We're actually committed to Greenland's defense--so what would we do, fight ourselves?)
The stupidity of profoundly alienating a country with whom we already had a perfect relationship--and on whom we're so dependent, strategically--is almost unfathomable. It only makes sense if you assume that we're truly planning to invade the place, and therefore need not care what Denmark (and the world) thinks about it. Otherwise it's just an act of shooting ourselves in the foot and in a *very* big way.
Does it need to be said that if we did such a thing we would lose every alliance we have? We wouldn't have a friend in the world. We would be a pariah state. Americans citizens would be welcome nowhere. It would be utterly catastrophic for the United States.
The hatred toward Americans that Trump is engendering by making threats like this will last for a very long time. There's nothing people like less than a powerful bully who threatens to invade and occupy their country.
There are numerous alternatives for a communion between the United States and Greenland that go beyond the limited treaty obligations that have been negotiated. Greenland could become an American State. Alternatively, Greenland could become a Commonwealth ((e.g. Puerto Rico). Another possibility is for Greenland to become a territory (e.g. the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Marshall Islands, etc.). These arrangements gurantee a degree of U.S. sovereignty while also guaranteeing self-rule. All of these options should be explored and the United States should be willing to reward Greenland’s current residents with generous financial compensation. It should be up to Greenland’s citizens to make the decision on which, if any, of these arrangements are satisfactory.
What the United States should not do is be unduly attentive to the desires of Denmark which is little more than a colonial invader. The only exception to this should be if Greenland’s residents desire to continue to be a colony of Denmark, if they do, that desire should be respected.
Greenland does fall within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. If China or any other adversary of the United States becomes too intertwined with Greenland than that would justify American intervention by any means necessary including military action.
The idea that the United States would be a pariah if it invaded Greenland is incorrect. China invaded Tibet; it’s not a pariah. Russia invaded Ukraine in the most vicious manner. It’s not a pariah either despite the American attempt to turn it into one.
Would India care if the U.S. invaded Greenland? Of course not. How would the EU react; it would do what it always does; mutter underneath its breath and immediately capitulate? What would NATO do? Somehow I doubt it would throw the United States out of the organization and decide to fend for itself.
The attention Trump is paying to Greenland makes the United States stronger not weaker.
Claire, I have just about the same amount of evidence that Trump’s attention to Greenland is making America stronger as you have that an invasion of Greenland would turn the United Ststes into a pariah nation.
Scott, there is actually a pretty widespread view that the Svalbard Treaty gives Russia too much influence over Spitzbergen which would just a be part of NATO member Norway exclusively under Norwegian sovereign control without it.
I actually think one of the key questions is if Greenland wants independence do they want to keep using the Danish Krone closely pegged to the Euro. What will happen to the banking system whose deposits are currently insured by Denmark? Neighboring Iceland has already dealt with the perils of being a small country trying to regulate a banking system(Iceland has its own currency FWIW)
The flip example of the Pacific Islands with Compacts of Free Association with the US which are UN Member States and thus nominal independent but use the US dollar and whose banking systems are covered by the FDIC. On the other hand while the citizens of Free Association Compact nations(which were all originally UN Trusteeships and even earlier League of Nations Mandates like Palestine) have the right to live and work in the US without an immigration visa currently Greenlanders are Danish citizens with all the rights that entails not just in Denmark but the rest of the EU.
Do Americans actually want to extend something like the Compacts of Free Association to new countries with the fiscal costs that entails? Do Greenlanders actually want to be a sovereign nation? Right now Greenland has two MPs in the Danish Parliament. Under the US constitution they would not have the same type of representation short of statehood.
I forgot to add that I’ve been to Greenland too, and again it was a long time ago, but I got the distinct impression from the locals I met that they weren’t very fond of the Dansk. But that was long ago and now that the Danish King has added a polar bear to the Royal Coat of Arms things may have changed. 😉
I’ve been there, although it was three decades ago just as the Berlin Wall was coming down. Russia had two very sad settlements on the main island adjacent to uneconomical coal mines, which exported their output to Mother Russia. Believe me, no one in their right mind wouldn’t have wanted to live there. The Norwegians I spoke with said Russia was there only to keep their legal interests in the area intact. At that time the Russians had no impact on the local economy, no say over who came or went, no infrastructure of any importance to anybody. They were there to keep an eye on NATO, but they were probably too drunk most of the time to do much useful surveillance.
Relative to Greenland we need to keep in mind we’re talking about a country with 50,000 people, which is about 40% the size of your neighboring town, Lowell. Any regional NE’ern bank could absorb the Greenland banking system. From an economic standpoint this is not a big deal.
Any deal that gets done should pass a local referendum, but from the US standpoint I think we could absorb the cost of another 50,000 people. We had more than that cross the southern border in September and they didn’t bring control over “one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements” with them.
Greenlanders do not, whatsoever, want to be part of the United States. They have their own identity, they enjoy rights and benefits that American citizens don't, and they don't want to give those up. They are deeply offended by this discussion.
Here's a good article about what we should be pursuing: https://ip-quarterly.com/en/dont-buy-greenland-buy-its-minerals. But we've now made all negotiation more difficult. Both Greenland and Denmark are democracies. It may be that our diplomats can smooth things over with their diplomats. It may be that we can persuade in that China is more of a risk to them than we are. But good luck persuading voters in either country--you can bet that just as in the US, populist politicians there will run on being "tough on the US."
My view is if you believe this region is strategically important(and I believe it is) the first and very necessary step in my opinion is to re-open Keflavik Naval Base in Iceland which was closed in 2006 very mistakenly even at the time according many like my Dad who is a US Navy veteran. Even if you don't believe in a US military presence in Europe my Dad's view was Iceland was fundamentally different and as much about protecting the United States itself as Europe on a strategically located island with little military force of it's own.
Step 2 in my opinion is reversing the decades shutdown of US military facilities in the New England states and the Canadian province of Newfoundland. As I am sure you are aware many military bases have closed in the 6 New England states like Fort Devens, Pease AFB, Loring AFB, Weymouth Naval Air Station, etc. or have been converted to non operational roles such as Hanscom AFB and Newport Naval Station. This needs to be reversed partially in order for the US to send a signal of the importance of the North Atlantic along with perhaps a return of the US military presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thirdly before any political change in Greenland occurs the US has to get super serious about Icebreakers and the merchant marine(Jones Act in particular).
A couple notes: as far as I know, the Inuit have not lived in Greenland for thousands of years, but colonized it in the 1200s, after Icelandic settlers had been living there for centuries. This settlement was nominally subject to Norway, which was sometimes in union with Denmark.
Chris Murphy’s statement that cutting taxes is “THEFT” is a bit Orwellian. It is probably not a good idea with the budget in its current state, but letting people keep what’s theirs without expropriation is not theft.
Also, I’d like to register cranky opposition to the name change of our base. “Thule” is a short, strong name, steeped in history and legend. “Pituffik” is pitiful, an awkward name for a long-removed cluster of huts.
The Late Dorset do seem to have overlapped with the Norse in Greenland, and possibly the Thule culture (ancestors of today’s Inuit), who replaced them in northern Canada as well.
I still think the Greenland idea was promoted to Trump by the Russia friendly useful idiots around him as a way to normalize the idea of annexation. Remember back in 2021 even Putin realized annexation was anathema in world public opinion. Hence the fairy tales about regime change and supporting „oppressed local separatists“. Since Putin lost that war, badly, his only way out that still saves face and looks like victory to the Russian people is to annex historical Ukrainian land. With the U.S. now also promoting annexation as fair game, that is on the table.
Personally I think Kagan, like most Western analysts, is still overestimating Russian strength. We are talking about a country dependent on North Korean soldiers and Iranian drones to defend itself. It’s amazing that Trump and most European leaders are prepared to surrender to Putin right when we are on the verge of victory.
Two interesting resources of note I watched and read today.
The first is the latest "The Rest is Politics" podcast featuring Alastair Campbell(Tony Blair's former top communications advisor) and former Tory MP Rory Stewart where they discussed the huge media battle between Keir Starmer and Elon Musk(Rory Stewart called Elon Musk a fascist on the episode although I think he has already called him a fascist before). Campbell and Stewart later discussed Austrian, German, and Canadian politics including Trump's annexation proposal of Canada. (Interestingly Campbell's acknowledges discussing the Starmer vs Musk battle with Tony Blair and claimed Blair stands 100% behind Starmer against Elon Musk)
Second Warren Kinsella, a very well known Canadian pro Israeli columnist in the Toronto Sun wrote a column this morning comparing those calling for Canada to be the 51st state to those who chant "For the River to the Sea" suggesting they both wish for the destruction of the Canadian and Israeli states respectively.
"Do you support Canada, or do you support the hostile power that intends to use “economic force” against us?
Do you support this country, or the dyspeptic Yankee president-elect who refers to us as the 51st state and who publishes maps showing that we no longer exist?
Because, make no mistake, that is the choice, now: Donald Trump or Canada. And what Trump is actively promoting is not entirely unlike the pro-Hamas forces’ “from the river to the sea,” is it? It means that Trump wants to see an imagined adversary wiped off the map."
I think I am finally going to get my chance interlink Canadian and Middle Eastern politics for the Middle East 201 Class.
Definitely recommend Borgen. Have seen all seasons. You really need to start at the beginning to get a decent overview of how Denmark politics works (assuming it’s closely aligned with the real life workings of their parliament?) but it’s hard not to get drawn in. The best season was the Greenland one (which I incorrectly assumed would be not too interesting).
After reading Claire’s analysis and her sharing of some other great pieces, I am wondering if Putin is done playing the long game due to his age? I mean sure ride around on horseback shirtless if you want but we haven’t seen that for a while. I don’t think he’s decrepit by any stretch of the imagination but surely it must be playing at the back of his mind?
I think Trump has the instincts of a thug. The thing is, just being a thug can be a winning strategy in many circumstances, if you have power over the people you are pushing around. We have so many thugs because, in many circumstances, being a thug is a good evolutionary strategy. Also, being obsequious to thugs can also be a winning strategy (or perhaps a strategy for losing less). The upshot being, Trump doesn't usually have to think ahead, because usually just being a thug in the moment is enough.
Threatening to invade countries starts out as just throwing his weight around. If you react with a certain amount of panic, like Canada did, he realizes he hit a nerve and he doubles down on it. But mostly, it's just softening his opponents up before he asks for what he really wants, even if he hasn't quite figured out what he really wants yet. The trouble is, now that he has made the threat, he has the seed of that thought in his head. If circumstances arise where he thinks it is to his advantage, that will be one of the options on the table. So no, I don't think he is serious when he says these things. But no, I don't think that means he would never do them.
But he never plans, because just being a thug has always been enough. So he likely hasn't thought through the ways that not supporting Ukraine might make him look bad. If it gets on his radar before it's too late, he might change his stance. Or he might just flex his muscles in some other way.
The thing is, being thuggish isn't a particularly effective way of dealing with other thugs who are, or think they are, as tough as you. Putin releasing pictures of Melania was a classic power thug move, and I know a lot of people think Putin has some sort of scandalous leverage over Trump. But it is hard to imagine what Putin could possibly have that would matter once Trump takes office, having been anointed King by SCOTUS. And I can't imagine Trump missed the significance of releasing those photos, or that he will let that go unanswered.
So I do see a path towards aid for Ukraine, but it runs though Putin pissing off Trump, and offers of fealty from Zelenskyy and tribute from Ukraine. Zelenskyy was once asked for a favour by Trump, it wouldn't surprise me that will be one of the requirements.
Trump rambles on about taking Canada - he doesn't want it and neither do Americans. Canada is both poor and liberal - unfortunate attributes. And they have embraced illiberal values (remember the truckers?).
But while the pundits are waxing eloquent about the stupidity of the Canada idea, Trump's cabinet picks march toward confirmation without the usual sniping from the left.
Trump is winning when the lefties play his game.
But Trump is right to consider the strategic issues with both Greenland and Panama. We aren't going to buy or take either place, but I bet Trump has softened up the opposition for a better deal than they want to offer. That is known as diplomacy (read how Bismarck handled Denmark and Austria).
As an aside, Biden/Blinken/Sullivan have completely taken their eyes off strategic issues like choke points and sea power (they should have read Mahan, but American education leaves a lot to be desired).
Right now Greenland is "guarded" by Denmark (I have never heard of a midget as a successful bodyguard); maybe a grownup is needed.
I am so tired of hearing about the "liberal values" of Europe. This is the same liberal Europe that sneers at Hungary, but votes against an inquiry into Pakistani rape gangs, that bans AfD members from buying guns in Germany's largest state, that censors its people (I could go on, but Claire's readers are smart, they can read about the creeping fascism in Europe).
Europe is committing suicide while sneering at the US and wallowing in mediocrity (Italy is arguably one of the big losers from the Houthis; why aren't their 19 ships (including a carrier) in the Red Sea)?
The U.S. is probably going to face a titanic struggle against China in the next 10 years. Let the Lilliputians in Europe help us or go to hell.
We are in a terrible position as a country potentially facing a war; we are broke, our military is consumed with DEI (look at our decrepit and ancient navy), our government is incompetent, and our academic elites are hellbent on emulating Oxford (King and Country Debate). Again, I could go on, but you get the picture. (Not blaming lefties alone; the Republicans have been equally feckless.)
After 15 months of diddling around about the hostages, Trump is the first American leader to actually do something other than mouth platitudes, give him credit. Release of the hostages should be an absolute precondition to a ceasefire negotiation, but look how the current crop of politicians rationalize leaving the hostages in Hamas hands.
The current governments in the US and Europe are failures. Time for both new blood and a new approach.
I like Trump’s press conferences; they’re stream of consciousness at its best and highly entertaining. I have a hard time deciding which puts more of a smile on my face; watching Trump meander in a hundred different directions or watching the panic on the faces of the mainstream press as they watch their worst nightmares coming true.
I think Claire is right; Trump is on the doorstep of being willing to abandon America’s leadership of the liberal international order in favor of accepting the reality that there will be several blocs of nations, each led by a powerful hegemon. That’s why Trump is focusing on American power and how that power can be enhanced by territorial expansion including the Panama Canal, Greenland and even Canada. In this regard, Trump is a modern day Teddy Roosevelt.
Trump’s strategy is the right one. The liberal international order that Claire desperately clings to has passed its use by date. Its collapse has nothing to do with anything the United States has done and everything to do with the economic, financial, political and cultural collapse of the American partners in sustaining the liberal world order; the EU nations, the United Kingdom and Japan. While Japan seems to be emerging from its coma, the UK, France and Germany are in terminal decline. The idea that Prime Minister Starmer, President Macron or Chancellor Scholz can resurrect the fortunes of their failing nations is laughable. None of their mainstream political opponents in the establishment opposition parties are any better than they are.
That’s why Elon Musk has come out in support of far right parties in these nations. European politicians who think a bit of tinkering is all it will take to fix their countries are plainly delusional. The UK and the EU nations will never be repaired by politicians playing ball within the 40 yard lines. Musk has looked at what another far right politician once scorned by polite society has done in Italy. Ms Meloni hasn’t turned out too bad and thanks to her, Italy is now the most stable country in Europe. The special relationship between the UK and the United States may be going down the tubes but the special relationship between Musk and Meloni looks to be burgeoning. In any case given Meloni’s success, maybe the Reform Party in the UK, the National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany could recapitulate Meloni’s success (not to mention the new far right leaders of Austria or the likely populist victor in Canada’s upcoming election). One thing looks certain, these “far right” parties are unlikely to perform worse that the European parties currently hanging on to legitimacy and political power by the skin of their teeth.
It’s also worth pointing out that the “far right” parties don’t seem to be any more allergic to democratic principles than the traditional European ruling parties. After all, it’s not far right Europeans demanding that the government arrest pensioners for uncouth tweets or jail people for silently praying in their own heads. It’s the establishment parties that have embraced anti democratic principles.
In light of the fact that America’s European partners are so feckless and useless that they bring nothing to the table when it comes to policing the liberal world order, what’s a great nation like the United States to do? That’s a question Trump and his people must be thinking about. Claire is right; Trump has concluded that shoring up America’s near abroad is the best approach. Incorporate Greenland by any means necessary (really, who cares what the Danes think). Do what it takes to kick China and Chinese companies out of the Panama Canal even if it requires taking over the canal with military force. Canada’s a different story. It’s a very nice country but if it became the 51st state; it would vote democratic down the line. If each province became a state, only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would vote Republican; the others would all vote Democrat.
As far as Ukraine goes, if maintaining leadership of the liberal world order is your main priority, a unequivocal Russian victory is a big problem. If you don’t care about the liberal world order or, if you conclude that European weakness has doomed the liberal world order no matter what you do, then a Russian victory in Ukraine is sad, but not that big of a deal. Russia controlled Ukraine for most of the 20th century. It wasn’t so good for Ukraine, but it wasn’t so bad for the rest of the world.
Once you give up on the liberal world order, new potential strategies begin to emerge. Trump alluded to some of those strategies in his entertaining press conference.
Claire, it’s time to face the music. The liberal world order is irretrievably broken. It’s kaput. It’s time to figure out what comes next.
The idea that Europe is in „terminal decline“ is laughable and promoted mostly by techbros who are angry when the EU won’t kow tow to them and by far right politicians who have no policy prescriptions other than to convince unhappy old people and angry young men that their personal failures are the result of some grand decay of civilization. Certainly Europe has real demographic issues and is cursed with poor leadership, but it’s not as if the alternatives look great. China is a house of cards built on massive debt with a rapidly decaying demographic situation worse than Europe. India is destroying small businesses and wasting an opportunity to build infrastructure and education. Brazil is still Brazil. Russia is no longer even worth mentioning as a world power, it’s on the road to complete collapse. And the U.S. seems increasingly like a madhouse to everyone who doesn’t live there - narcissistically self-obsessed, violent and childish (much like its leadership). The liberal order is the only way forward for Europe, Canada and Australia. Hopefully their leaders will recognize that before it’s too late.
Hannes, one thing in particular that you mentioned really struck me; “The idea that Europe is in “terminal decline“ is laughable and promoted mostly by techbros who are angry when the EU won’t kow tow to them…”. There’s some truth to that, but those techbros are ascendent while the power of European leaders is collapsing.
Something Claire said that I agree with is that a major reason Elon Musk supported Trump is to insure that Trump is on his side when it comes to European regulation of speech on social media and regulations around AI. I would go so far as to say this is far and away the most important reason Musk supported Trump.
Starmer is doing the best imitation of an authoritarian leader that he can by arresting elderly pensioners for publishing mean tweets. I think Musk will urge Trump to punish Starmer and the UK if Starmer expands his censorship regime. The EU’s Digital Services Act is now almost fully functional. There’s no question that Musk’s Twitter is in violation of the Act. If Facebook extends to Europe its decision to dramatically reduce content moderation as it has in the United States, it will also be in violation of the DSA.
I can’t wait to watch the EU try to sanction Twitter and Facebook for violating its censorship law. If and when it does, Trump is sure to go ballistic. Who knows what he might do. Tariffs on the EU; that’s a possibility. Recalling ambassadors; I wouldn’t put it past Trump. Viciously attacking European leaders; that’s very much Trump’s style. Pulling out of NATO; don’t bet against it.
The leaders of the EU know Trump’s likely response if they sanction American social media companies. My guess is that the EU’s opening gambit will be complete capitulation. That would be very much in character for them; don’t you think? Besides spouting platitudes, surrendering while muttering underneath its breath is what the EU does best.
As for the potential of the EU to regulate AI; there’s no question that AI needs regulation. There’s also no question that those regulations need to come out of the United States not Europe. Based on its history, it’s a sure bet that any regulations developed by the EU will be onerous, cumbersome, ineffective and sure to stifle innovation. . Even many EU supporters understand that when it comes to regulations, the EU usually gets it wrong.
Just look at what happened last week. Musk published a hundred or so two or three line tweets. They were just words. Starmer became hysterical. The Germans freaked out. Macron became apoplectic. Panicked European leaders acted like the proverbial fox had invaded the hen house.
Could there be a better metaphor for how weak and ineffective these so-called leaders are? I wonder; are they weak because their nations are weak or are their nations weak because these leaders are weak?
To use another animal analogy, Starmer, Macron, Scholz, Trudeau aren’t men, they’re mice.
This Wall Street Journal column from Walter Russell Mead says it far better than I could. It’s entitled, “Nations Prepare for a Post European World: Trump Recognized That the Continent Has Abdacated Its Role in History.” See,
So you've embraced outright fascism. How inspiring. I don't use the word as an empty epithet. I use it in the scholarly sense. It is exactly the philosophy you have expressed above.
No. I suspect you know very well with the difference is. But in case there's any confusion, Walter Russell Mead is not advocating invading democratic countries on the grounds that might makes right.
No he’s not. Neither am I. As for Greenland, I’m not for an invasion; just ignoring Denmark’s colonial interests. The 50,000 or so Greenlanders would have to approve an American acquisition or there would be no deal. Obviously adequate financial arrangements would be required.
As for Panama, you’ve heard of the Monroe Doctrine. China’s influence over the canal needs to be constantly scrutinized. If Chinese influence over the canal grows to be greater than it is now, everything needs to be on the table to prevent that.
As for Canada, I think with the new Prime Minister everything will be just fine. Military force to annex Canada has been suggested over and over even in the early 20th century. It was never a good idea. It wasn’t then; it’s not now.
Are you telling me that the Monroe Doctrine is fascistic and that the fifth president of the United States was a fascist?
I'm just wondering about the people who called him from other countries; did they call him sir? Were there tears in their eyes, or did the sob as they spoke?
Claire: I have been a silent admirer of this site for a while, but am not a fan of performative techniques that escort our vocabulary—and hence our thoughts and narratives to the gates of Hell. I am drawing my own lines. Enough of the parallels to the 3rd Reich.
Claire,
I went down the Greenland rabbit hole today after reading your CG post on that topic. Here’s some of what I learned (with help from ChatGPT) that I thought you might find interesting.
The company holding the exploration license for the Kvanefjeld Rare Earths project in Greenland is Energy Transition Minerals Ltd (ETM), a publicly traded Australian company. They are a very small (28 employees) resource exploration company and have been active in Greenland for over a decade.
Their most recent annual report mentions that they’ve discovered what they believe is “one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements (REEs)”—estimated at around 1 billion tonnes.
The company claims it was granted an exploitation license by the Greenland government, but progress on the project had halted due to a 2021 law passed by Greenland’s legislature banning the extraction of uranium ore. Since the rare earths in the Kvanefjeld deposit are mixed with uranium ore in concentrations above the allowable limits, Greenland with Danish support has effectively blocked further development.
In response, ETM has filed a lawsuit against Greenland and Denmark in the International Arbitration Court in Copenhagen.
If ETM loses in court, they’re likely finished, as the company only has one other project—a lithium deal in southern Spain. But if they win, Greenland (and Denmark) may be faced with two bad choices: either let the project proceed or pay EMT damages. Regardless of what Greenland and Denmark decide under such circumstances, ETM and its Chinese strategic partner would stand to win big.
To give you an idea of what’s a stake financially, ETM claims it has invested $150 million in the project, but their lawsuit seeks $11.5 billion in damages. The damage claim is certainly inflated, but it’s important to note it does not include the profit potential of the downstream activities to be controlled by their Chinese partner.
Speaking of the Chinese partner: ETM’s “strategic partner” is Shenghe Resources, a Chinese rare earth company, acquired a 12.5% stake in Greenland Minerals about a decade ago for just $3.5 million. Shenghe is slated to process all the ores extracted from the Kvanefjeld deposit, thus consolidating Chinese dominance in the REE processing well into the future.
Here’s the kicker: controlling the downstream processing of these rare earth elements also means controlling their marketing. As you know, China already dominates the global REE market. If they gain exclusive access to what ETM’s chair, Sara Kelly, describes as “one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements,” it would, she tells her shareholders, “fundamentally change the balance of the global REE market”. She’s obviously pitching her shareholders for their continued support, but from a geopolitical perspective I don’t think she is far off the mark.
(I can send you a ChatGPT summary of ETM’s legal action against Greenland and Denmark if you’re interested. The text of the EMT complaint is not available from public sources, but is available directly from EMT.)
Now, let’s consider the outcomes.
Without Trump in the picture, most of this might have flown totally under the radar. If ETM’s claims were dismissed, the bliss of our ignorance would have continued. EMT would have quietly gone bankrupt (they reportedly have enough cash to last two more years, which is how long the arbitration process might take). For the Chinese, a loss at arbitration might have stung, but they would still dominate the REE market globally. Meanwhile, Denmark would have continued subsidizing Greenland’s economy (to the tune of ~$600 million annually), and life above the Arctic Circle would go on much as it has for centuries.
On the other hand, had EMT prevailed and the public remained unaware of Chinese efforts to insinuate themselves into Greenland’s mineral development, we might have woken up in a few years with China’s dominance in global REE markets raised to yet a higher, perhaps insurmountable level.
But with Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland and its strategic importance, the stakes are now apparent. A deal involving the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark could dramatically shift the balance of power.
While an outright purchase of Greenland is probably not in the cards, imagine an outcome where Greenland achieves national sovereignty under a commonwealth or condominium arrangement with both the U.S. and Denmark—similar to the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 governing Spitzbergen. The U.S. would provide financial and security guarantees, strengthening Greenland’s independence.
If ETM’s claim were denied under such circumstances, Greenland could still leverage its rare earth deposits with a new, globally-powerful, deep-pocketed partner (the U.S.) committed to their long-term security and economic stability. If ETM won, Denmark would no longer face the dilemma of choosing between paying $11.5 billion or ceding strategic ground to China. The U.S. would likely cover any costs of any damage award to eliminate Chinese influence in Greenland and disrupt China’s global REE monopoly. China would lose big, while Australia gains from the legal success of ETM and its shareholders.
While it’s fun to joke about Trump’s antics, the stakes involved in a deal with Greenland/Denmark are very real. Without Trump’s reemergence on this issue, we might have woken up in a few years in a much worse strategic position than we are today. Whatever deal ultimately emerges between Nuuk, Copenhagen and Washington, it will likely be better than what we might have happened had Mrs. Harris taken the helm.
Best,
Scott
Scott, I assure you this wasn't flying under the radar of the Defense Department. All of this is extremely well-known to the people who are supposed to know about it. They didn't need Trump to bring it to their attention. They know, and they have known, of Greenland's strategic significance for a very long time: the US invoked the Monroe Doctrine and occupied Greenland during World War II to prevent Germany from using it (Germany was occupying Denmark). And I *guarantee* you they're well aware of the strategically critical minerals there, as well as China's interest in them.
But we don't need a deal with Greenland. We have one already: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.aspv.
What Trump has succeeded in doing is profoundly alienating both Denmark and Greenland--on whom we are *very* dependent, strategically. That dependence was not a problem whatsoever, given how closely allied we were and still are, on paper. But Trump has forced Denmark to take seriously the possibility that the United States--its ally since the Second World War--could actually invade sovereign territory. They are having ministerial meetings with the highest level right now trying to figure out how to respond to this--and because Denmark is in the EU, so is the entire European Union. As if this was what they needed to worry about right now. (We're actually committed to Greenland's defense--so what would we do, fight ourselves?)
The stupidity of profoundly alienating a country with whom we already had a perfect relationship--and on whom we're so dependent, strategically--is almost unfathomable. It only makes sense if you assume that we're truly planning to invade the place, and therefore need not care what Denmark (and the world) thinks about it. Otherwise it's just an act of shooting ourselves in the foot and in a *very* big way.
Does it need to be said that if we did such a thing we would lose every alliance we have? We wouldn't have a friend in the world. We would be a pariah state. Americans citizens would be welcome nowhere. It would be utterly catastrophic for the United States.
The hatred toward Americans that Trump is engendering by making threats like this will last for a very long time. There's nothing people like less than a powerful bully who threatens to invade and occupy their country.
There are numerous alternatives for a communion between the United States and Greenland that go beyond the limited treaty obligations that have been negotiated. Greenland could become an American State. Alternatively, Greenland could become a Commonwealth ((e.g. Puerto Rico). Another possibility is for Greenland to become a territory (e.g. the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Marshall Islands, etc.). These arrangements gurantee a degree of U.S. sovereignty while also guaranteeing self-rule. All of these options should be explored and the United States should be willing to reward Greenland’s current residents with generous financial compensation. It should be up to Greenland’s citizens to make the decision on which, if any, of these arrangements are satisfactory.
What the United States should not do is be unduly attentive to the desires of Denmark which is little more than a colonial invader. The only exception to this should be if Greenland’s residents desire to continue to be a colony of Denmark, if they do, that desire should be respected.
Greenland does fall within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. If China or any other adversary of the United States becomes too intertwined with Greenland than that would justify American intervention by any means necessary including military action.
The idea that the United States would be a pariah if it invaded Greenland is incorrect. China invaded Tibet; it’s not a pariah. Russia invaded Ukraine in the most vicious manner. It’s not a pariah either despite the American attempt to turn it into one.
Would India care if the U.S. invaded Greenland? Of course not. How would the EU react; it would do what it always does; mutter underneath its breath and immediately capitulate? What would NATO do? Somehow I doubt it would throw the United States out of the organization and decide to fend for itself.
The attention Trump is paying to Greenland makes the United States stronger not weaker.
What's your evidence for it making us stronger?
Claire, I have just about the same amount of evidence that Trump’s attention to Greenland is making America stronger as you have that an invasion of Greenland would turn the United Ststes into a pariah nation.
Scott, there is actually a pretty widespread view that the Svalbard Treaty gives Russia too much influence over Spitzbergen which would just a be part of NATO member Norway exclusively under Norwegian sovereign control without it.
I actually think one of the key questions is if Greenland wants independence do they want to keep using the Danish Krone closely pegged to the Euro. What will happen to the banking system whose deposits are currently insured by Denmark? Neighboring Iceland has already dealt with the perils of being a small country trying to regulate a banking system(Iceland has its own currency FWIW)
The flip example of the Pacific Islands with Compacts of Free Association with the US which are UN Member States and thus nominal independent but use the US dollar and whose banking systems are covered by the FDIC. On the other hand while the citizens of Free Association Compact nations(which were all originally UN Trusteeships and even earlier League of Nations Mandates like Palestine) have the right to live and work in the US without an immigration visa currently Greenlanders are Danish citizens with all the rights that entails not just in Denmark but the rest of the EU.
Do Americans actually want to extend something like the Compacts of Free Association to new countries with the fiscal costs that entails? Do Greenlanders actually want to be a sovereign nation? Right now Greenland has two MPs in the Danish Parliament. Under the US constitution they would not have the same type of representation short of statehood.
Tim,
I forgot to add that I’ve been to Greenland too, and again it was a long time ago, but I got the distinct impression from the locals I met that they weren’t very fond of the Dansk. But that was long ago and now that the Danish King has added a polar bear to the Royal Coat of Arms things may have changed. 😉
Tim,
I’ve been there, although it was three decades ago just as the Berlin Wall was coming down. Russia had two very sad settlements on the main island adjacent to uneconomical coal mines, which exported their output to Mother Russia. Believe me, no one in their right mind wouldn’t have wanted to live there. The Norwegians I spoke with said Russia was there only to keep their legal interests in the area intact. At that time the Russians had no impact on the local economy, no say over who came or went, no infrastructure of any importance to anybody. They were there to keep an eye on NATO, but they were probably too drunk most of the time to do much useful surveillance.
Relative to Greenland we need to keep in mind we’re talking about a country with 50,000 people, which is about 40% the size of your neighboring town, Lowell. Any regional NE’ern bank could absorb the Greenland banking system. From an economic standpoint this is not a big deal.
Any deal that gets done should pass a local referendum, but from the US standpoint I think we could absorb the cost of another 50,000 people. We had more than that cross the southern border in September and they didn’t bring control over “one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements” with them.
Greenlanders do not, whatsoever, want to be part of the United States. They have their own identity, they enjoy rights and benefits that American citizens don't, and they don't want to give those up. They are deeply offended by this discussion.
Here's a good article about what we should be pursuing: https://ip-quarterly.com/en/dont-buy-greenland-buy-its-minerals. But we've now made all negotiation more difficult. Both Greenland and Denmark are democracies. It may be that our diplomats can smooth things over with their diplomats. It may be that we can persuade in that China is more of a risk to them than we are. But good luck persuading voters in either country--you can bet that just as in the US, populist politicians there will run on being "tough on the US."
My view is if you believe this region is strategically important(and I believe it is) the first and very necessary step in my opinion is to re-open Keflavik Naval Base in Iceland which was closed in 2006 very mistakenly even at the time according many like my Dad who is a US Navy veteran. Even if you don't believe in a US military presence in Europe my Dad's view was Iceland was fundamentally different and as much about protecting the United States itself as Europe on a strategically located island with little military force of it's own.
Step 2 in my opinion is reversing the decades shutdown of US military facilities in the New England states and the Canadian province of Newfoundland. As I am sure you are aware many military bases have closed in the 6 New England states like Fort Devens, Pease AFB, Loring AFB, Weymouth Naval Air Station, etc. or have been converted to non operational roles such as Hanscom AFB and Newport Naval Station. This needs to be reversed partially in order for the US to send a signal of the importance of the North Atlantic along with perhaps a return of the US military presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thirdly before any political change in Greenland occurs the US has to get super serious about Icebreakers and the merchant marine(Jones Act in particular).
A couple notes: as far as I know, the Inuit have not lived in Greenland for thousands of years, but colonized it in the 1200s, after Icelandic settlers had been living there for centuries. This settlement was nominally subject to Norway, which was sometimes in union with Denmark.
Chris Murphy’s statement that cutting taxes is “THEFT” is a bit Orwellian. It is probably not a good idea with the budget in its current state, but letting people keep what’s theirs without expropriation is not theft.
Also, I’d like to register cranky opposition to the name change of our base. “Thule” is a short, strong name, steeped in history and legend. “Pituffik” is pitiful, an awkward name for a long-removed cluster of huts.
I think I was right in the first place. This looks like a reasonably reliable source, and they've got the Inuit there for 4500 years: https://www.greenland-travel.com/inspiration/culture/inuit-the-population-and-culture-in-greenland/#:~:text=About%204%2C500%20years%20ago%2C%20the,approximately%201%2C000%2D1%2C100%20years%20ago.
Interesting, I’m coming up with mixed results. The first two waves of immigration from the west, the Saqqaq and Dorset cultures, appear to be extinct, with no genetic connection to the present day Inuit. The Danish national museum refers to the Saqqaq as “pre-Inuit” https://natmus.dk/organisation/forskning-samling-og-bevaring/nyere-tid-og-verdens-kulturer/etnografisk-samling/arktisk-forskning/prehistory-of-greenland/saqqaq/
The Late Dorset do seem to have overlapped with the Norse in Greenland, and possibly the Thule culture (ancestors of today’s Inuit), who replaced them in northern Canada as well.
Didn't know that about the Inuit, thanks. I agree with your other remarks.
I still think the Greenland idea was promoted to Trump by the Russia friendly useful idiots around him as a way to normalize the idea of annexation. Remember back in 2021 even Putin realized annexation was anathema in world public opinion. Hence the fairy tales about regime change and supporting „oppressed local separatists“. Since Putin lost that war, badly, his only way out that still saves face and looks like victory to the Russian people is to annex historical Ukrainian land. With the U.S. now also promoting annexation as fair game, that is on the table.
Personally I think Kagan, like most Western analysts, is still overestimating Russian strength. We are talking about a country dependent on North Korean soldiers and Iranian drones to defend itself. It’s amazing that Trump and most European leaders are prepared to surrender to Putin right when we are on the verge of victory.
Two interesting resources of note I watched and read today.
The first is the latest "The Rest is Politics" podcast featuring Alastair Campbell(Tony Blair's former top communications advisor) and former Tory MP Rory Stewart where they discussed the huge media battle between Keir Starmer and Elon Musk(Rory Stewart called Elon Musk a fascist on the episode although I think he has already called him a fascist before). Campbell and Stewart later discussed Austrian, German, and Canadian politics including Trump's annexation proposal of Canada. (Interestingly Campbell's acknowledges discussing the Starmer vs Musk battle with Tony Blair and claimed Blair stands 100% behind Starmer against Elon Musk)
https://youtu.be/JTtqGSwTLO0?si=8pjtYDATlihgKXgy
Second Warren Kinsella, a very well known Canadian pro Israeli columnist in the Toronto Sun wrote a column this morning comparing those calling for Canada to be the 51st state to those who chant "For the River to the Sea" suggesting they both wish for the destruction of the Canadian and Israeli states respectively.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-if-you-support-trump-over-canada-get-the-hell-out?taid=677eb33634bce2000162cf3e&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
From Kinsella:
"Do you support Canada, or do you support the hostile power that intends to use “economic force” against us?
Do you support this country, or the dyspeptic Yankee president-elect who refers to us as the 51st state and who publishes maps showing that we no longer exist?
Because, make no mistake, that is the choice, now: Donald Trump or Canada. And what Trump is actively promoting is not entirely unlike the pro-Hamas forces’ “from the river to the sea,” is it? It means that Trump wants to see an imagined adversary wiped off the map."
I think I am finally going to get my chance interlink Canadian and Middle Eastern politics for the Middle East 201 Class.
Definitely recommend Borgen. Have seen all seasons. You really need to start at the beginning to get a decent overview of how Denmark politics works (assuming it’s closely aligned with the real life workings of their parliament?) but it’s hard not to get drawn in. The best season was the Greenland one (which I incorrectly assumed would be not too interesting).
After reading Claire’s analysis and her sharing of some other great pieces, I am wondering if Putin is done playing the long game due to his age? I mean sure ride around on horseback shirtless if you want but we haven’t seen that for a while. I don’t think he’s decrepit by any stretch of the imagination but surely it must be playing at the back of his mind?
I think Trump has the instincts of a thug. The thing is, just being a thug can be a winning strategy in many circumstances, if you have power over the people you are pushing around. We have so many thugs because, in many circumstances, being a thug is a good evolutionary strategy. Also, being obsequious to thugs can also be a winning strategy (or perhaps a strategy for losing less). The upshot being, Trump doesn't usually have to think ahead, because usually just being a thug in the moment is enough.
Threatening to invade countries starts out as just throwing his weight around. If you react with a certain amount of panic, like Canada did, he realizes he hit a nerve and he doubles down on it. But mostly, it's just softening his opponents up before he asks for what he really wants, even if he hasn't quite figured out what he really wants yet. The trouble is, now that he has made the threat, he has the seed of that thought in his head. If circumstances arise where he thinks it is to his advantage, that will be one of the options on the table. So no, I don't think he is serious when he says these things. But no, I don't think that means he would never do them.
But he never plans, because just being a thug has always been enough. So he likely hasn't thought through the ways that not supporting Ukraine might make him look bad. If it gets on his radar before it's too late, he might change his stance. Or he might just flex his muscles in some other way.
The thing is, being thuggish isn't a particularly effective way of dealing with other thugs who are, or think they are, as tough as you. Putin releasing pictures of Melania was a classic power thug move, and I know a lot of people think Putin has some sort of scandalous leverage over Trump. But it is hard to imagine what Putin could possibly have that would matter once Trump takes office, having been anointed King by SCOTUS. And I can't imagine Trump missed the significance of releasing those photos, or that he will let that go unanswered.
So I do see a path towards aid for Ukraine, but it runs though Putin pissing off Trump, and offers of fealty from Zelenskyy and tribute from Ukraine. Zelenskyy was once asked for a favour by Trump, it wouldn't surprise me that will be one of the requirements.
"Gotcha"
Trump rambles on about taking Canada - he doesn't want it and neither do Americans. Canada is both poor and liberal - unfortunate attributes. And they have embraced illiberal values (remember the truckers?).
But while the pundits are waxing eloquent about the stupidity of the Canada idea, Trump's cabinet picks march toward confirmation without the usual sniping from the left.
Trump is winning when the lefties play his game.
But Trump is right to consider the strategic issues with both Greenland and Panama. We aren't going to buy or take either place, but I bet Trump has softened up the opposition for a better deal than they want to offer. That is known as diplomacy (read how Bismarck handled Denmark and Austria).
As an aside, Biden/Blinken/Sullivan have completely taken their eyes off strategic issues like choke points and sea power (they should have read Mahan, but American education leaves a lot to be desired).
Right now Greenland is "guarded" by Denmark (I have never heard of a midget as a successful bodyguard); maybe a grownup is needed.
I am so tired of hearing about the "liberal values" of Europe. This is the same liberal Europe that sneers at Hungary, but votes against an inquiry into Pakistani rape gangs, that bans AfD members from buying guns in Germany's largest state, that censors its people (I could go on, but Claire's readers are smart, they can read about the creeping fascism in Europe).
Europe is committing suicide while sneering at the US and wallowing in mediocrity (Italy is arguably one of the big losers from the Houthis; why aren't their 19 ships (including a carrier) in the Red Sea)?
The U.S. is probably going to face a titanic struggle against China in the next 10 years. Let the Lilliputians in Europe help us or go to hell.
We are in a terrible position as a country potentially facing a war; we are broke, our military is consumed with DEI (look at our decrepit and ancient navy), our government is incompetent, and our academic elites are hellbent on emulating Oxford (King and Country Debate). Again, I could go on, but you get the picture. (Not blaming lefties alone; the Republicans have been equally feckless.)
After 15 months of diddling around about the hostages, Trump is the first American leader to actually do something other than mouth platitudes, give him credit. Release of the hostages should be an absolute precondition to a ceasefire negotiation, but look how the current crop of politicians rationalize leaving the hostages in Hamas hands.
The current governments in the US and Europe are failures. Time for both new blood and a new approach.
I like Trump’s press conferences; they’re stream of consciousness at its best and highly entertaining. I have a hard time deciding which puts more of a smile on my face; watching Trump meander in a hundred different directions or watching the panic on the faces of the mainstream press as they watch their worst nightmares coming true.
I think Claire is right; Trump is on the doorstep of being willing to abandon America’s leadership of the liberal international order in favor of accepting the reality that there will be several blocs of nations, each led by a powerful hegemon. That’s why Trump is focusing on American power and how that power can be enhanced by territorial expansion including the Panama Canal, Greenland and even Canada. In this regard, Trump is a modern day Teddy Roosevelt.
Trump’s strategy is the right one. The liberal international order that Claire desperately clings to has passed its use by date. Its collapse has nothing to do with anything the United States has done and everything to do with the economic, financial, political and cultural collapse of the American partners in sustaining the liberal world order; the EU nations, the United Kingdom and Japan. While Japan seems to be emerging from its coma, the UK, France and Germany are in terminal decline. The idea that Prime Minister Starmer, President Macron or Chancellor Scholz can resurrect the fortunes of their failing nations is laughable. None of their mainstream political opponents in the establishment opposition parties are any better than they are.
That’s why Elon Musk has come out in support of far right parties in these nations. European politicians who think a bit of tinkering is all it will take to fix their countries are plainly delusional. The UK and the EU nations will never be repaired by politicians playing ball within the 40 yard lines. Musk has looked at what another far right politician once scorned by polite society has done in Italy. Ms Meloni hasn’t turned out too bad and thanks to her, Italy is now the most stable country in Europe. The special relationship between the UK and the United States may be going down the tubes but the special relationship between Musk and Meloni looks to be burgeoning. In any case given Meloni’s success, maybe the Reform Party in the UK, the National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany could recapitulate Meloni’s success (not to mention the new far right leaders of Austria or the likely populist victor in Canada’s upcoming election). One thing looks certain, these “far right” parties are unlikely to perform worse that the European parties currently hanging on to legitimacy and political power by the skin of their teeth.
It’s also worth pointing out that the “far right” parties don’t seem to be any more allergic to democratic principles than the traditional European ruling parties. After all, it’s not far right Europeans demanding that the government arrest pensioners for uncouth tweets or jail people for silently praying in their own heads. It’s the establishment parties that have embraced anti democratic principles.
In light of the fact that America’s European partners are so feckless and useless that they bring nothing to the table when it comes to policing the liberal world order, what’s a great nation like the United States to do? That’s a question Trump and his people must be thinking about. Claire is right; Trump has concluded that shoring up America’s near abroad is the best approach. Incorporate Greenland by any means necessary (really, who cares what the Danes think). Do what it takes to kick China and Chinese companies out of the Panama Canal even if it requires taking over the canal with military force. Canada’s a different story. It’s a very nice country but if it became the 51st state; it would vote democratic down the line. If each province became a state, only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would vote Republican; the others would all vote Democrat.
As far as Ukraine goes, if maintaining leadership of the liberal world order is your main priority, a unequivocal Russian victory is a big problem. If you don’t care about the liberal world order or, if you conclude that European weakness has doomed the liberal world order no matter what you do, then a Russian victory in Ukraine is sad, but not that big of a deal. Russia controlled Ukraine for most of the 20th century. It wasn’t so good for Ukraine, but it wasn’t so bad for the rest of the world.
Once you give up on the liberal world order, new potential strategies begin to emerge. Trump alluded to some of those strategies in his entertaining press conference.
Claire, it’s time to face the music. The liberal world order is irretrievably broken. It’s kaput. It’s time to figure out what comes next.
The idea that Europe is in „terminal decline“ is laughable and promoted mostly by techbros who are angry when the EU won’t kow tow to them and by far right politicians who have no policy prescriptions other than to convince unhappy old people and angry young men that their personal failures are the result of some grand decay of civilization. Certainly Europe has real demographic issues and is cursed with poor leadership, but it’s not as if the alternatives look great. China is a house of cards built on massive debt with a rapidly decaying demographic situation worse than Europe. India is destroying small businesses and wasting an opportunity to build infrastructure and education. Brazil is still Brazil. Russia is no longer even worth mentioning as a world power, it’s on the road to complete collapse. And the U.S. seems increasingly like a madhouse to everyone who doesn’t live there - narcissistically self-obsessed, violent and childish (much like its leadership). The liberal order is the only way forward for Europe, Canada and Australia. Hopefully their leaders will recognize that before it’s too late.
Hannes, one thing in particular that you mentioned really struck me; “The idea that Europe is in “terminal decline“ is laughable and promoted mostly by techbros who are angry when the EU won’t kow tow to them…”. There’s some truth to that, but those techbros are ascendent while the power of European leaders is collapsing.
Something Claire said that I agree with is that a major reason Elon Musk supported Trump is to insure that Trump is on his side when it comes to European regulation of speech on social media and regulations around AI. I would go so far as to say this is far and away the most important reason Musk supported Trump.
Starmer is doing the best imitation of an authoritarian leader that he can by arresting elderly pensioners for publishing mean tweets. I think Musk will urge Trump to punish Starmer and the UK if Starmer expands his censorship regime. The EU’s Digital Services Act is now almost fully functional. There’s no question that Musk’s Twitter is in violation of the Act. If Facebook extends to Europe its decision to dramatically reduce content moderation as it has in the United States, it will also be in violation of the DSA.
I can’t wait to watch the EU try to sanction Twitter and Facebook for violating its censorship law. If and when it does, Trump is sure to go ballistic. Who knows what he might do. Tariffs on the EU; that’s a possibility. Recalling ambassadors; I wouldn’t put it past Trump. Viciously attacking European leaders; that’s very much Trump’s style. Pulling out of NATO; don’t bet against it.
The leaders of the EU know Trump’s likely response if they sanction American social media companies. My guess is that the EU’s opening gambit will be complete capitulation. That would be very much in character for them; don’t you think? Besides spouting platitudes, surrendering while muttering underneath its breath is what the EU does best.
As for the potential of the EU to regulate AI; there’s no question that AI needs regulation. There’s also no question that those regulations need to come out of the United States not Europe. Based on its history, it’s a sure bet that any regulations developed by the EU will be onerous, cumbersome, ineffective and sure to stifle innovation. . Even many EU supporters understand that when it comes to regulations, the EU usually gets it wrong.
Just look at what happened last week. Musk published a hundred or so two or three line tweets. They were just words. Starmer became hysterical. The Germans freaked out. Macron became apoplectic. Panicked European leaders acted like the proverbial fox had invaded the hen house.
Could there be a better metaphor for how weak and ineffective these so-called leaders are? I wonder; are they weak because their nations are weak or are their nations weak because these leaders are weak?
To use another animal analogy, Starmer, Macron, Scholz, Trudeau aren’t men, they’re mice.
This Wall Street Journal column from Walter Russell Mead says it far better than I could. It’s entitled, “Nations Prepare for a Post European World: Trump Recognized That the Continent Has Abdacated Its Role in History.” See,
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/nations-prepare-for-a-post-european-world-trump-foreign-policy-national-defense-f1773e72
So you've embraced outright fascism. How inspiring. I don't use the word as an empty epithet. I use it in the scholarly sense. It is exactly the philosophy you have expressed above.
But Claire, how could he have hidden his true colors so well? Right under our noses!
Has Walter Russell Mead who expressed many of the sentiments in his column that I expressed in my comment also embraced fascism?
No. I suspect you know very well with the difference is. But in case there's any confusion, Walter Russell Mead is not advocating invading democratic countries on the grounds that might makes right.
No he’s not. Neither am I. As for Greenland, I’m not for an invasion; just ignoring Denmark’s colonial interests. The 50,000 or so Greenlanders would have to approve an American acquisition or there would be no deal. Obviously adequate financial arrangements would be required.
As for Panama, you’ve heard of the Monroe Doctrine. China’s influence over the canal needs to be constantly scrutinized. If Chinese influence over the canal grows to be greater than it is now, everything needs to be on the table to prevent that.
As for Canada, I think with the new Prime Minister everything will be just fine. Military force to annex Canada has been suggested over and over even in the early 20th century. It was never a good idea. It wasn’t then; it’s not now.
Are you telling me that the Monroe Doctrine is fascistic and that the fifth president of the United States was a fascist?
Not looking for a fight. Not trying to get this wrong. Just trying to curate the current age for myself.
I'm just wondering about the people who called him from other countries; did they call him sir? Were there tears in their eyes, or did the sob as they spoke?
Claire: I have been a silent admirer of this site for a while, but am not a fan of performative techniques that escort our vocabulary—and hence our thoughts and narratives to the gates of Hell. I am drawing my own lines. Enough of the parallels to the 3rd Reich.
I mean, calling out some one turning the shining city on the hill into a pirate nation can come in many forms... what's your preferred metaphor?
Take it up with the ones creating the parallels, not me.