Greenland

 

There is no doubt that Trump wants to be able to say that he and the United States ‘owns’ Greenland. This has nothing to do with US strategic interests or US security. The 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, which was renewed in 2004, allows the United States to build bases there, station troops, and more. For Trump, owning Greenland is purely personal. As he told the New York Times on 7 January he wants to own Greenland because “that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success”.

The fact that US foreign policy could be dictated by the President’s psychological need, a need that if translated into action would destroy NATO as currently constituted and start a war with at least one long standing ally of the US, just reflects how much the United States has become a fascist state. When I wrote this post almost a year ago I argued that Trump’s administration could reasonably be called fascist in part because of its use of violence. Back then the main example was Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, and his pardon for all those convicted in that attempt. Now we can see how he has created his own police force with the clear intention of terrorising that part of the population that didn’t vote for him, and his administration’s attempts to justify the killing of innocent civilians by that force (and using law enforcement agencies to prosecute victims and political opponents). 

Given this, Europe is absolutely right to take Trump’s threats against Greenland extremely seriously. Various European countries sending troops to Greenland is, I think, the correct response. Of course Europe does not have the military capability to actually fight the US if it actually came to a conflict. That is not why Europe has sent troops. Instead Europe is increasing the cost to Trump of any invasion. These troops are not meant to fight, but to deter.

The key thing to recognise, and what is missing from much UK analysis, is how fragile the Trump regime is on this issue. A majority of US citizens do not want to be part of a fascist state, even though a very substantial minority act as if they do. The Republican party has lost all the elections held since Trump took power, and in many cases lost big. In addition Trump craves popularity, and his popularity ratings remain pretty poor.

In one recent poll, 86 percent were against the U.S. using military force to acquire Greenland, with just 9 percent in favor of such a move. Would those numbers shift after a US military operation and ‘success’? I doubt that. It would become clear that through this invasion Trump had effectively withdrawn the United States from NATO. Pictures of US troops taking troops from Europe prisoner would not play nearly as well as them taking an unpopular dictator from Venezuela.

Perhaps more important is the reaction of the US military and Congress. Unsurprisingly, US generals are far from happy about the prospect of attacking a NATO ally, particularly if the order to do so did not have Congressional backing. This is why members of Congress have declared any order to invade Greenland would be illegal. As NATO has been such an important part of the US military for so long, of course such a blatant way of ending that alliance would cause deep unease, and perhaps lead to several resignations. Of course those within the Trump administration who actively want the US out of NATO may be pushing a Greenland invasion for precisely that reason.

Even more important would be Congress. The Republicans have a wafer thin majority in the House of Representatives, and an invasion of the territory of a NATO ally would almost certainly mean that majority would no longer exist. So far Congress has essentially allowed Trump to do whatever he likes, even when he steps on the legal ground that Congress formally controls, but taking the US out of NATO would be a step too far for some Republican politicians.

There is also a cost to the MAGA fanatics who are pushing Emperor Trump to realise his imperial ambitions. A US takeover in Greenland and the withdrawal/expulsion of the US from NATO would be a big blow to the populist right in many European countries. It would become much easier for mainstream politicians to paint the populist right as the enemy within, supporting Trump either directly or indirectly by promoting the policies that Trump supports.

So the military reaction of Denmark and other European countries to Trump's threats over Greenland make sense as a form of deterrent, trying to increase the political costs to him of his ambitions by as much as they can. There is at least a short term asymmetry that benefits the European side. Any conflict will hit the popularity of Trump and the Republican party before crucial midterm elections this year, but a conflict is likely to enhance the popularity of most European governments, particularly against populist oppositions that have links to the US right. It could also benefit European governments in diluting any non-populist opposition, much as Trump’s attacks on Canadian sovereignty helped Mark Carney in last year’s Canadian elections.

It is for this reason that Trump is now trying to use tariffs in an effort to force European governments to back down. But, at least in the short term, the asymmetry in the reaction of public opinion noted above is also likely to apply with tariffs. Higher tariffs are not popular in the US because they tend to push up the prices US consumers face. They are costly for European companies and economies as well, of course, but again it is clear to voters who started this fight. While economics might suggest that the best response of Europe to higher tariffs is to do nothing, economic retaliation in some form may well play better politically.

It is also important to note that a habitual liar like Trump does have an exit path that allows him to save face. Trump could back down on the idea of owning Greenland, but pretend he has achieved a victory through some manufactured ‘new agreement’ to increase the number of US bases in Greenland or something similar. To his MAGA base and a by now largely captured US media, it wouldn’t matter too much that such an agreement gave the US rights it already has. In contrast European governments will only suffer if they give in to Trump’s demands.

In the past I have written that right wing populist’s worst enemy is often their tendency to overreach and overplay their hand. The more they depend on the mind of a single individual surrounded by yes men or fanatics the more this is likely to happen. I suspect Trump and Greenland will turn out to be an example of this, although the costs of populist failure on this particular issue may be felt more by populists outside the US than by Trump himself.