From what we hear and read today, the question is no longer whether the US President Donald Trump will annex Greenland to the United States despite the opposition of its authorities and of the Kingdom of Denmark, under whose crown the island falls. Rather, it is Washington’s target that observers are seeking to identify.
Before us lies an array of potential “targets” for invasion and annexation. Trump’s far-right base considers such steps not only acceptable but necessary: “if we don’t take it, someone else will.”
Iran, of course, tops the list, whether for consideration tied to Israel or for its resources. Cuba, a “longtime enemy” in the heart of the Caribbean, just a stone’s throw from the southern islands of the state of Florida, is another. Colombia, the second most populous country in South America, remains another prominent target, even after the “friendly” phone call between Trump and its leftist president, Gustavo Petro.
Personally, I would not dismiss the possibility of Washington going back to talking about taking Canada, especially since Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, which together form the “lithium triangle”, are now effectively governed by right-wing governments aligned with Washington.
Meanwhile, Europe’s position toward Washington’s "abrasive" policy has garnered attention. Europe seems resigned to its fate and is unlikely to do anything in response to Washington’s insistence on redrawing maps, and by extension, the world’s “economic and financial fabric.” Many factors that explain this stance, the most prominent of which are the following:
First, European leaders, almost without exception, are convinced that the “old continent” is a paper tiger that can give eloquent lectures to the world but does not believe in the principles or values it promotes.
Second, Europe is far too weak to defy Washington. That has in fact been the case for decades, even before the Ukraine war that is now at its peak.
Third, even NATO, the defense alliance that had protected Western and Central Europe from Moscow’s ambitions, is no longer a priority. The Trump administration favors immediate ad hoc deals over long-term strategic alliances founded on shared values and mutual interests.
Fourth, “identity” is no longer a strategic matter, even for Europeans who believe in a “single European destiny.” Indeed, extremists like the Hungarian President Viktor Orban, along with the “neo-fascist” parties in Poland, Germany, and Greece in the east, and, to the west, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, where they are in power, have lost interest in the notion of a shared European identity. Consequently, they see no reason to defend Ukraine against a Russian leader who, under the table, supported the rise of their movements across the continent.
Fifth, if the overarching principle governing Washington’s current policy is grounded in the demonization of migration and migrants, as well as privileging immediate, narrow self-interest over the values and principles laid out in international agreements and institutions. The extremists in Europe are on the same page.
A striking example is the enthusiasm of the right-wing leadership of the British Conservative Party for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights following Britain’s exit from the European Union. Moreover, we have President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from 66 international agreements and organizations - half of them affiliated with the United Nations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an agreement that supports all international efforts to combat global warming.
Trump explained that he had taken this decision because these entities “no longer serve American interests" and promote "ineffective or hostile agendas." These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities, according to a statement by the White House. It also accused many of the organizations of promoting "radical climate policies, global governance and ideological programs that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength".
In parallel, a prominent American figure last week defended the “wisdom” and foresight of the US president’s decision to impose US dominance across the Americas for declared and undeclared objectives. He argued that this effort does not seek the expropriation of resources, but to deny rivals seeking global dominance, chiefly China, the opportunity to extract from the continent’s resources under Washington’s very eyes.
The arguments, but in a more arrogant and aggressive tone, were recently made by Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s most influential aides, who then added: “If we don’t take it, someone else will!”
By the way, does this not remind you of the “logic” of the Israeli settler who had attacked the fields of a village with his friends in the West Bank?!
