Exactly what Russia did in Ukraine.
But that doesn't mean the guy is not doing it. The option is there.
One thing we don't know yet is whether US intelligence knows something we don't, in terms of China and or Russia.
USA has since 1942 I believe had the military defence over the island, so in that capacity its not something new.
We’re in the midst of the collapse of the rules-based international order. America ignored it in Iraq and Libya. Russia ignored it in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. China is ignoring it across the South China Sea, Hong Kong and Tibet. (For brevity I’m largely ignoring the Middle East and entire continent of Africa.)
The only ones holding onto the system for dear life are the Europeans, and even there they’re starting to wise up. I’m not thrilled about what’s to come. But it’s clear that just because annexing through force is de jure illegal doesn’t have much bearing onto whether it will happen.
Isn't it a matter of resource mining? Greenland is getting warmer and thus the access to its resources becomes gradually easier.
In context, with talking about using "economic force" to force a US "unification" of Canada? I'm less likely to give him the maximum benefit of the doubt.
The US also engineered Panama's independence in order to get sovereignty over the canal zone, which they completed. And then of course they actually invaded the country in 1989.
So the idea is clearly not new.
Now, this is Trump so a lot of bluster and unclear what he is actually getting at but in an historical perspective neither this nor (re)gaining control of the Panama canal (which the US only fully relinquished in 1999) are new or crazy.
That's not what happened. In fact its local government reached out to the US and agreed to come under its wing as a de-facto protectorate, which it saw as a preferable alternative to Canadanian/British (and in any case German) intervention.
Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his mind. His overall goal is to lay out grievances and trying to upsell their severity. The end goal is, and always is, to make some kind of "deal". He's a Karen, trying to talk to the manager.
People shouldn't take his threats literally - but you should take them seriously. I don't think the threat is that the US invades Greenland, but that the US uses it as an excuse to try to sour relations with Europe.
Same thing with Panama and renaming the gulf thing. I don't think the US would take over Panama (again). But there is probably going to be a massive effort to get China to stop trading with Cuba and Venezuela.
Your take is dead on but there is a case where we actually do get it done and its not as hard as its being made out to be.
Since the first time Trump mentioned buying Greenland though, public opinion in Greenland has largely changed in favour of joining the EU instead (while they previously chose not to be part of the EU). It's at 60% in favour now.
So I don't really see this happening.
>People shouldn’t take his threats literally - but you should take them seriously.
So, when Trump talks about possibly using force to annex Greenland or control the Panama canal we all should consider this trolling but you also want everyone to take it seriously. I understand you think you’ve made some nuanced point there, however this is a complete contradiction, if you aren’t aware. The lengths some people go to excuse, explain away and play down this man’s words is quite astounding.
Here's what he actually said https://youtu.be/K0EaHawPM2g
As an aside I think the whole strategy is past its best by date. People are wise to it and still elected Trump despite the best efforts.
Reporter: Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas you are not going to use military or economic coercion?
Trump: No. I can't assure you - you're talking about Panama and Greenland - no, I can't assure you on either of those two, but I can say this: we need them for economic security. The Panama Canal was built for our military. I'm not going to commit to that. It might be that you'll have to do something. Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country. It's being operated by China. China! And we gave the Panama Canal to Panama, we didn't give it to China, and they've abused it. They've abused that gift. It should have never been made, by the way.
[jump cut]
Reporter: Mr President, back on Greenland. Your position is clear, but have you directed your staff to take a specific action to draw plans, and can you elaborate again. You didn't rule out military coercion and -
Trump: Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes. I've been told that for a long time - long before I even ran - people have been talking about it for a long time. You have approximately 45,000 people there. People really don't even know if Denmark has any legal right to it. But if they do, they should give it up, because we need it for national security; that's for the free world. I'm talking about protecting the free world. You look at - you don't even need binoculars - you look outside, you have China ships all over the place. Your have Russian ships all over the place. We're not letting that happen. And if Denmark wants to get to a conclusion - but nobody knows if they even have any right, title, or interest - the people are probably going to vote for independence or to come into the United States - but if they did do that, then I would tariff Denmark at a very high level.
Reporter: Did you ask your staff to draw plans for acquisition? Are you actively pursuing it?
Trump: No, we're not at that stage, but we have people - I haven't even entered office yet.> Trump says 'economic force' could be used to unite Canada, United States
> Trump says Meta 'probably' ended factchecking because of his threats
> Trump says Gulf of Mexico should be renamed to 'Gulf of America'
An interesting strategy.
Testing, 1, 2, 3... kidding
In reality, it seems the American administration (both Biden & Trump) is working overtime to damage the cross-Atlantic alliance and the rules-based order better than entire departments at FSB.
Where do I even start?
Threatening the sovereignty of non-hostile states - Panama, Canada, Greenland. Continuously funding an unpopular war (some say, genocide) in Palestine. Threatening grievous sanctions against allies for no economically sound reason. Inviting Putin to "do whatever he wants" to NATO allies.
...to mention but a few.
Quoting De Gaulle: The truth is that the Americans will eventually make themselves hated by everyone, even by their most unconditional allies.