I’ve talked about the chaos that is likely to come when the global order is redefined to be one of competition, conflict, imperialism and desire for hegemonism.
Dividing a world into three great empires is a Trump idea, providing a platform for imperialism in the Americas and to establish hegemony in Western Hemisphere. We are watching the first phase of this policy underway in Venezuela. Columbia, Mexico, Cuba and Greenland are on the future list, according to Trump. This imperialism will be without regard to the views of the states affected - friendly or hostile.
Many if not most countries already know that once Trump has been granted with one favor, he will return for more. He is not a person who imagines that he has an equal, so every relationship must be one of opposition, submission or careful management. The result is a constant state of tension and uncertainty. Now Mr. Trump has announced that he might use force against Columbia and Cuba. He has criticized Mexico again, but others believe there is a high level of cooperation already and downplay the use of force by the U.S. Danes and Greenlanders have pushed back repeatedly on Trump’s seizure claims.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has stated that a U.S. takeover of Greenland would be the end of NATO. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK support Frederiksen’s statement. Frederiksen has asked the United States to address the issue directly with Denmark, and Secretary Rubio said he would meet with Danish officials next week to discuss the future of Greenland.
THERE WAS A PATHWAY OF NATO COOPERATION, BUT TRUMP IGNORED IT
If the US were as alarmed about Greenland and the Russia and Chinese threats as Trump claims, long ago American leadership would have found a peaceful way to ramp up the American presence in Greenland in full cooperation with Denmark. Washington could have taken the issue to NATO after a joint US/Danish review of security issues.
Instead, the Trump administration has completely ignored the extensive attention NATO already has given to Arctic security. NATO has formally addressed Arctic security through ministerial dialogues, joint statements at defense meetings, recurring military security fora like the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable (ASFR), and thematic NATO-hosted conferences. These are not always labelled as a singular “Arctic security summit,” but they are official NATO engagements where security in the Arctic has been a central agenda topic. These have included the following: (1) defense ministers from NATO’s Arctic member states (Canada, Denmark, Norway, the U.S., Iceland, Finland, Sweden) and representatives of Greenland and the Faroe Islands have met in a “Northern Defence Dialogue” format to discuss Arctic security cooperation, threats, and strategic priorities. They have issued joint statements on enhancing cooperation and reaffirmed their commitment to Arctic security; (2) NATO allies and partner nations participate in the ASFR, a high-level defense forum focused on military cooperation and Arctic security issues, with participation from NATO commands and allies in the region; (3) the NATO Arctic Space Forum, established in 2025 bringing together senior NATO officials, defense ministers, industry and other experts to address security issues; (4) and reports and discussions by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for stronger NATO engagement on Arctic security and visits to Arctic areas to highlight security concerns. This is a considerable foundation to be used to create a widespread cooperative solution set within the framework of the Atlantic Alliance.
Consider what would have happened had Trump taken up this major initiative within NATO, already well-informed and concerned, and proposed a major security improvement focused on Greenland. Doing this within the Alliance would have strengthened the joint commitment of NATO members and magnified the clear message to Russia and China that the Arctic and the safety of Greenland were of major importance to those 32 countries. With Finland and Sweden newly in NATO the region’s security would have been enhanced even more.
TRUMP DISGUISES HIS REAL INTENTIONS, WHICH USUALLY INVOLVE RESOURCES
Why? Because for Trump, he wants to be the THE ONE who breaks the cookie jar and helps himself to the contents. Within his strategy of imperialism, in one after another crisis he invents some seemingly justifiable, but false, reason to threaten and, if needed, to apply force. For Greenland, Trump put the focus on security, but that issue could have been handled long ago with more impact through NATO jointly merging Europe and America into a global security space concerning the island. But security is not his principal goal; it is access to Greenland’s mineral bounty. At the moment effectively exploiting those riches is a distant goal. There is plenty of time to agree cooperatively how to accomplish those ends. There is no requirement for the urgency Trump describes. He simply wants to lock out any competition early in the process.
That false reason for Venezuela was drugs; his goal was and is the oil. He has said the U.S. could “run” Venezuela for years, taking advantage of his monopoly. For Ukraine the false reason was wanting to end the conflict while the real goal is to win the Nobel Peace Prize, gain access Ukraine’s mineral treasures on the one hand and achieve favorable trade relations for the U.S. with Russia on the other hand. The resources of Ukraine and the financial relationship with Russia are more important to him than any other factor.
THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY INCREASES GLOBAL INSTABILITY AND WEAKENS AMERICA
Anne Applebaum’s NSS analysis “The longest suicide note in American history” published in Atlantic magazine on December 16 is a must read. Her commentary is withering. As she says, the NSS is actually an attack on liberal democracy itself. It is the latest in a series of affirmations that the U.S. will no longer oppose Russian influence campaigns in the US and Europe, and “is an absolute refusal to acknowledge the existence of enemies or name any country that might wish America ill.”
The paper targets only European liberal democracy and states America’s opposition to “imposing on (other nations) democratic or other social changes.” In other words, as long as commercial profits are the emphasis of American strategy, the US will ignore those unalienable rights that encapsulate the 250 year old promise of the American Revolution. The person or group who wrote this disgraceful document is wholly detached from the moral stature of America’s democratic history and promise.
VENEZUELA REMAINS A PROJECT OF GREAT UNCERTAINTY
The invasion and takeover of Venezuela on January 3 with the removal to the U.S. of Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores has opened Pandora’s box. All of Trump’s forays start with firm predictions of success. Have any of the Venezuela planners, including the President, recalled the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya to replace dictatorial leadership and create friendly supportive allies? Do they remember the often repeated promise of Trump to get out of “endless” wars? Did anyone have the courage to present the doctrine of Colin Powell (a great Republican warrior/diplomat) governing the use of force abroad? When I looked at the 8 questions of the Powell Doctrine applied to the Venezuela invasion, not one had a “yes” answer. Number 5 seemed to be especially pertinent: Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
None is in sight.