FM: John Whitbeck
Transmitted below is an AI-generated image which Donald Trump has posted in advance of his speech at Davos tomorrow.
European Union leaders are scheduled to meet in Brussels on Thursday to try to agree on a coordinated European response.
I can envision two distinct responses, both of which would be politically and intellectually coherent:
1. Since European leaders consistently and properly insist that the future of Greenland can only be decided by the people of Greenland, European governments could seek to defuse and defang Trump's lust for legacy-enhancing territorial expansion, which clearly has nothing remotely to do with "security" and which is probably enhanced by the "Mercator projection" on flat maps, which makes Greenland look even bigger than it really is, by organizing and promptly scheduling a self-determination referendum through which the people of Greenland could choose democratically between maintenance of the their current political status and the U.S. government's best offer to them, committing European governments to respect the result of this referendum and urging the U.S. government to do likewise.
2. Since European leaders could and should view the challenge posed by Trump as one whose significance extends well beyond Greenland, they could decide to get up off their knees, to stop groveling and boot-licking, to assert the permanent independence of their once great countries from Israeli/American domination and control and, by doing so, to make Europe proud and respectable again, necessarily terminating Europe's subservient military relationship with the United States in the process.
Since it is exceedingly difficult for 27 governments to agree on any coherent foreign policy position, it is more likely that, as usual, an incoherent "compromise" which Trump would view as further evidence of European weakness will be reached.
Of course, the traditional European "compromise" has been to fall dutifully in line behind whatever policy the United States is advocating on any issue, but, with the adversary and potential enemy now being the United States itself, anything is possible.
We are living in interesting times.
Transmitted below is an AI-generated image which Donald Trump has posted in advance of his speech at Davos tomorrow.
European Union leaders are scheduled to meet in Brussels on Thursday to try to agree on a coordinated European response.
I can envision two distinct responses, both of which would be politically and intellectually coherent:
1. Since European leaders consistently and properly insist that the future of Greenland can only be decided by the people of Greenland, European governments could seek to defuse and defang Trump's lust for legacy-enhancing territorial expansion, which clearly has nothing remotely to do with "security" and which is probably enhanced by the "Mercator projection" on flat maps, which makes Greenland look even bigger than it really is, by organizing and promptly scheduling a self-determination referendum through which the people of Greenland could choose democratically between maintenance of the their current political status and the U.S. government's best offer to them, committing European governments to respect the result of this referendum and urging the U.S. government to do likewise.
2. Since European leaders could and should view the challenge posed by Trump as one whose significance extends well beyond Greenland, they could decide to get up off their knees, to stop groveling and boot-licking, to assert the permanent independence of their once great countries from Israeli/American domination and control and, by doing so, to make Europe proud and respectable again, necessarily terminating Europe's subservient military relationship with the United States in the process.
Since it is exceedingly difficult for 27 governments to agree on any coherent foreign policy position, it is more likely that, as usual, an incoherent "compromise" which Trump would view as further evidence of European weakness will be reached.
Of course, the traditional European "compromise" has been to fall dutifully in line behind whatever policy the United States is advocating on any issue, but, with the adversary and potential enemy now being the United States itself, anything is possible.
We are living in interesting times.
