Trump floats claims for Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal

[superchuck500]

Oh, but he's only joking - well, maybe, so they say. Or sort of joking with Canada, and maybe not joking with Greenland - saying that "ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity" doesn't sound like a joke . . . and um, not sure about what the about Panama Canal thing is?

Trump Jokes Canada Becoming 51st US State 'A Great Idea'

US President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday it would be "a great idea" for Canada to become the 51st US state, teasing on social media that "many Canadians" welcome the idea, as Ottawa is wracked by a political crisis.

www.barrons.com

Trump threatens to try to take back the Panama Canal. Panama's president balks at the suggestion

Donald Trump is suggesting that his new administration could try to regain control of the Panama Canal.

apnews.com

 

[superchuck500]

I haven't joined Bluesky, but I like the comments in that link. It's fun to read people's comments when they're sane and not MAGA-fied.

With Zuck going full Trump, I suspect the Threads crowd is going to move over to Bluesky.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I haven't joined Bluesky, but I like the comments in that link. It's fun to read people's comments when they're sane and not MAGA-fied.

My favorite comment so far

The new administration hasn’t even started yet and I’m already exhausted

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social)

“Back in 1867, Democratic President Harry Truman tried to buy Greenland”

bsky.app

I thought I was being pessimistic when thinking that the idea of MAGA was a 1950's America, THEY WANT A 19TH CENTURY AMERICA!!!

These clowns dream of an America where we reveled in genocide, embraced slavery and still obsessed with colonization.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

With Zuck going full Trump, I suspect the Threads crowd is going to move over to Bluesky.

Yep. I mentioned just that on the EE forum.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[brandon]

I guess America has lived long enough to see itself become the villain.

 

[SystemShock]

I don't know if, at this point, Trump is just saying shirt to see how far the right would go before anyone on the right says "that's crazy". This is Branch Davidians/Heaven's Gate/Jonestown batshit crazy.

 

[faceman]

This is all so GD stupid

yes the king of Denmark is trolling Trump now. The idiots that voted for him are reaping what they sowed.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I don't know if, at this point, Trump is just saying shirt to see how far the right would go before anyone on the right says "that's crazy". This is Branch Davidians/Heaven's Gate/Jonestown batshit crazy.

he will never get to that point it seems.

 

[Dragon]

He is doing what Putin wants. Creating chaos and distrust in Nato

 

[superchuck500]

 

[SystemShock]

This is all so GD stupid

It's a fine Italian name.

I guess it can be called anything you want in the U.S., but you can't force the rest of the world to call it the same.

Also, the U.S. is not "America" for the rest of the world. It is the U.S. If the world would agree to call the Gulf of Mexico Gulf of America, it'd be understood it was being named after the continent, not the U.S.

Up next, renaming the Caribbean to Caribapple.

Let's see if they have better luck with this than with freedom fries.

 

[superchuck500]

The only sensible thing that Trump’s Greenland and Canada press can be his determination that the opening of the Arctic (due to climate change) is strategically important and he wants to improve the US position there. It is indeed true but bullying long-standing allies and NATO partners isn’t going to be fruitful in the 2020s.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Be prepared to use this a lot:

(Trump statements) have gone from funny/stupid to officially no longer funny (but still stupid)

 

[superchuck500]

This is well done:

An easier question to answer is why Trump keeps uttering these threats. One reason is that he seems to sincerely believe that strong countries have the right to bully weaker ones. Trump has long insisted that the United States should seize smaller countries’ natural resources, and that American allies should be paying us protection money, as if they were shopkeepers and America were a mob boss.

A second reason is that Trump uses his international bullying as fan service for his base. The actual, concrete policy agenda of Trump’s presidency consists largely of boring regulatory and tax favors to wealthy donors and business interests—priorities that most of his voters don’t care about. Trump seems to grasp the need for public dramas to entertain the MAGA base.

Spectacles of domination play an important role in Trump’s political style. “Build the wall” is the classic example: Trump never did build his “big, beautiful wall” along the length of the southern border, yet his fans don’t hold that against him, because the physical manifestation of a barrier on the southern border was beside the point. They thrilled instead to the idea of a wall as an expression of strength and defiance. When Trump would respond to criticism by saying, “The wall just got 10 feet higher,” he was performing dominance. The real wall was the threats he made along the way.

The Political Logic of Trump’s International Threats

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico is a lot simpler than building the wall.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Dragon]

This is well done:

The Political Logic of Trump’s International Threats

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico is a lot simpler than building the wall.

www.theatlantic.com

Perception is Key
The reality is that U.S. allies have stood by America and sacrificed alongside it in numerous U.S.-led wars, from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet this seems lost on MAGA supporters, who embrace Trump’s narrative that the U.S. is indispensable and that the world owes it unconditional subservience. Such attitudes alienate allies and risk pushing them toward greater independence, potentially leaving the U.S. isolated and outside the very alliances it once led.

Europe’s Response
Europe learned a hard lesson during Trump’s first presidency. Over the past few years, European nations have worked diligently to reduce reliance on the U.S., fostering deeper military cooperation within Europe. In a future NATO without U.S. participation, European nations would likely take the lead in strengthening regional defense while exploring expanded partnerships beyond traditional borders. This evolution would mark a shift from transatlantic dependence to a more self-reliant and globally engaged Europe.

NATO Without the U.S.
A NATO without the United States would face significant challenges but also create opportunities for new alliances and regional frameworks:

• European Leadership: Nations like France, Germany, and the UK would likely step up to lead NATO’s strategic direction, ensuring collective defense remains a priority.
• Expanded Partnerships: Countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia could deepen their ties with NATO, contributing to a broader, more global security network.
• Self-Reliance: Europe would invest more heavily in its defense capabilities, reducing reliance on American military technology and infrastructure.

Global Partnerships
Even without U.S. participation, NATO would retain its relevance by strengthening ties with global partners:

• Australia: A key partner in counterterrorism, cyber defense, and maintaining a rules-based international order.
• Japan: A crucial ally in the Indo-Pacific, supporting maritime security and regional stability.
• South Korea: Collaborates on defense technologies and shared strategies against North Korean aggression.
• Colombia: NATO’s first Latin American partner, focusing on military modernization and tackling transnational crime.

Key Areas of Focus for a NATO Without the U.S.

• Defense Technology & Training: European nations would need to invest significantly in innovation to fill gaps left by U.S. withdrawal.
• Cybersecurity: Strengthened coordination among member states and partners to address cyber threats.
• Shared Values: Reinforcing a rules-based international order while addressing emerging security challenges like hybrid warfare.
• Regional Stability: Greater emphasis on securing Europe’s borders and engaging with neighboring regions.

The Bottom Line
A NATO without U.S. participation would force Europe and its allies to rethink defense strategies and foster greater collaboration. While challenges would arise, such a shift could ultimately lead to a more balanced and multipolar approach to global security, with Europe and its partners playing a central role in maintaining stability and countering threats.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes this is a tweet from the account of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

 

[Dragon]

Yes this is a tweet from the account of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This vision is not only unrealistic but dangerously reminiscent of imperialist ambitions we’ve seen throughout history—very "Putin-esque," to say the least. Such a doctrine, if pursued, would alienate allies, destabilize global relations, and ultimately leave the U.S. isolated on the world stage.

Rather than fostering cooperation and mutual respect among nations, this approach undermines the very principles of sovereignty and diplomacy that have been key to global stability. If the U.S. continues down this path of aggressive unilateralism, it risks standing alone in an increasingly interconnected world—an outcome that would weaken its influence rather than strengthen it.

Dreaming big is fine, but when those dreams involve annexation and domination, they cease to be dreams and become a global nightmare.