Trump's Greenland gambit wasn't about land—it was about forcing Europe to build its own army, turning threats into strategic alliances for a stronger NATO.
The mainstream narrative is that Donald Trump wants to purchase Greenland and expand the American Empire, even if this comes at the cost of not only his alliance with Denmark, but also NATO.
It would be easy to make this conclusion from a laid observant’s point of view, but the hidden motives could also have a much deeper objective:
Arming Europe.
Ever since the end of the Second World War — and even more so, the “Cold War” — European countries as a whole have largely neglected their militaries, believing that the end of militarism was on the horizon, and that even if things should take a turn for the worst, the United States could take care of these problems.
This idealism may have made more sense at a time when the United States was the dominant military power of the world, and when the Communist nations were so economically broken that there was no chance that they would seriously try and launch a conventional all-out-war with the West.
We no longer live in those days.
The United States economy has been waning since the 1970s, following a general international recovery from the Second World War Era, which has been further exacerbated by the more recent recessions of the past two decades.
Regardless of the hype found in news outlets from both the left and the right, the United States is no longer an uncontested dominant economic and military superpower, and perhaps nobody understands this better than Donald Trump himself.
That is why he threatened to withdraw American support from Ukraine.
That is why he is now threatening to take Greenland.
Trump neither wants Ukraine to lose to Russia, nor does he want the responsibility of overseeing a faraway island that is already in the hands of his allies.
What he really wanted was to get NATO to arm itself so that the American military can refocus its priorities from Europe against an already weakened Russia, to the Pacific against China — where the real superpower struggle will be decided.
Should a war between the United States and China occur today, it would not be anywhere near the cakewalk for the former as it would have been 70, 50, 30, or even 10 years ago.
In fact, it is theoretically possible that the Chinese would win, with their much larger population being a great asset in such a conflict, alongside their advanced military budgets.
And when we take Russia, Iran, North Korea and all of China’s other allies into the equation, the war would not be in America’s favour.
This is why it was in the best interest of the Trump administration to provoke its allies into action, with short-term backsets being favoured in exchange for the long-term advantages his words can deliver.
And when one looks at the big picture, Trump has been more successful in this regard than any other president in decades:
- Europe did begin arming itself by spending more on their military, including the reintroduction of compulsory military service for men, while others are investing in long-range missiles or other technological means of standing up to the Russians and their allies
- Trump had reneged on the stockpile limit of 1,550 nuclear missiles signed during the Reagan Era and forced Russia into a new arms race that Moscow could not afford
- NATO-affiliated countries in particular have been alarmed in such a way that it has roused them from their sleep and made them more cautious in not taking the decades of relative global peace for granted
This all plays against Putin — who had dreamed of pushing his armies deeper into Europe following a hypothetical Ukrainian win — and in favour of Trump, who not only gets to spend more of his military in the Pacific in favour of Europe, he now puts Russia in a less advantageous position without the need of a direct confrontation.
While everybody is lamenting over Trump leaving his chess queen in the open to be captured, people are missing how this will win him the king five moves later.
Trump never wanted to “buy” Greenland.
Trump wanted to buy the European Army without having to pay for its purchase.
And seeing how practically every European country, including Switzerland, has become more militarised in large part because of his recent policies and “threats”, Trump has already gotten what he wanted.
Last year, when Trump was openly threatening to leave Ukraine to its fate, many condemned him, and in response, other European countries began producing their own weapons to be given to the Ukrainian Army.
And what happened then?
Trump made a backflip, declaring that Ukraine could win the war, and that he would see to it that they got every square kilometre of lost territory back.
Suffice it to say, I doubt that it was a coincidence that his change of tone came about only after Europe as a whole collectively decided to stand up and make their own contributions, rather than expecting Washington to do this alone.
The leaders of these countries silently got the message, though its people have not.
Even if NATO itself never fully trusts President Trump, another sitting leader may win over that confidence, and should a war with the Russian-Chinese alliance break out then, at least the United States will not be the only opposing country with a presentable armed force.
By any realistic means, the only way the United States has of winning the next global war is by militarily strengthening his allies so that when the next great global war does break out, the NATO Coalition will be ready to sacrifice its soldiers into the meat grinder on Day One instead of Day Thirty, Day One Hundred, or Day One Thousand.
And if diplomatic means cannot convince them otherwise, then some good old-fashioned sabre rattling must become the norm.
No comments:
Post a Comment