Subjugating Canada, Panama and Greenland: Trump wants to be the great land gatherer. Almost like Putin, but without the shooting

Before they have even begun execution, Trump and his team have developed unprecedented foreign policy activity. Their immediate goals: to annex Canada, to take the Panama Canal from Panama and Greenland from Denmark. Other presidents also wanted a lot of things, but were more modest.

The first point is hard to accomplish, Canada is too big to swallow so easily. Canada is a member of NATO and you can’t go to war with it. Economic pressure and bribery for the sake of “Anschluss” is possible, but will drag on longer than Trump’s term. The next president will deal with other problems.

The second point is quite realistic, as it had a precedent. In late 1989, the U.S. quarreled with Panama’s dictator General Noriega, declared him a drug dealer, and landed the largest landing force since World War II at all of Panama’s airports, power plants, and mines of defense. The invasion force amounted to 26,000 U.S. military personnel. Panama’s entire army was 12,000.

The country was overrun in a couple days, with U.S. casualties of 23. A day later, the U.S. brought its president of Panama to power. Noriega was taken away and given 30 years for drugs. In principle, all of this could be repeated. But the seizure of the Panama Canal will cause a serious crisis, it is not a fact that it will be possible to keep it afterwards, as the USA gave it to Panama officially and voluntarily.

But the third point can be accomplished without shooting. Greenland’s army has 60 men, and the US military at the Pituffik base near the Arctic Circle has 200 men (and there were 10,000). The Danish prime minister responded by announcing that he would purchase two new dog sleds for the troops in Greenland.

But while Politico writes menacingly that Denmark will not be able to resist a military takeover of Greenland, it is impossible to go to war with it. Just as Canada is a NATO member, invading its land would lead to a severe crisis. Trump’s plan is much simpler: scare the Danes and Greenlanders first, then buy them.

Since the population of the island is 56 thousand (in Maryino, for example, 272 thousand) each resident can easily determine a lifetime pension and such a social package that no one can resist. According to the constitution, Greenland may well declare independence and then conclude a binding military treaty with the United States. So far, the Pentagon doesn’t need anything else. Whether the US will want to annex Greenland is a question for the next president.

Thus, Trump has set a maximum goal for the voters – to annex Canada, and will fulfill the minimum goal – to subjugate Greenland. Well, and go down in history as a great president and collector of lands. If he also takes the Panama Canal, he’ll go down in all the textbooks.

Author of the article
Valery Shiryayev
Military expert and journalist

Add a comment

  1. TechExplorer_

    If history classes start including chapters titled conquer Canada, Greenland, and Panama, I might just have to reconsider my vacation plans 🏖️😂 Seriously though, the idea of buying Greenland with dog sled bribes and lifetime pensions sounds like the most chill real estate negotiation ever 🛷💸 Meanwhile, Canada’s too big to bite but probably too polite to say no right away 🍁🇨🇦 Watching this unfold feels like a bizarre mix of a board game and a reality show, and I’m here for every episode 📺🤷‍♀️

    Reply
  2. EnigmaJourney2041

    This perspective on such bold foreign policy moves really makes you think about the scale of ambition some leaders have and how history might remember them 🌍. The idea of annexing places like Greenland or the Panama Canal feels almost like something out of a novel, but also highlights how geopolitical strategy can play out in unexpected ways. It’s fascinating and a bit unnerving to consider these possibilities in our modern world 🤔.

    Reply
  3. WhisperingMover

    This article really highlights the boldness of the ambitions described, and it’s fascinating to see how historical precedents shape modern political maneuvers. The idea that Greenland could be more easily influenced due to its small population and strategic position makes a lot of sense, especially compared to the complexities with Canada. It’s interesting to consider how diplomacy, economics, and military presence intertwine in such geopolitical goals, and how these moves might ripple through international relations beyond just the immediate targets.

    Reply
  4. VelvetPirate

    This perspective on Trump’s foreign policy goals is both shocking and fascinating! 😲 The idea of annexing entire countries sounds like something out of a history book, not modern politics. The Panama Canal example really shows how force and strategy have been used in the past, which makes the Greenland plan seem more subtle but just as bold 🌍❄️. I can’t help but wonder what the long-term consequences would be for all parties involved. The power dynamics and ethical questions raised here are huge. Definitely gives a lot to think about! 🤔✨

    Reply
  5. SolarHawk

    This plan sounds like a mix between a board game strategy and a wild reality show! 😂 Annex Canada? Better pack enough maple syrup for the negotiations 🍁🥤 Greenland with dog sled diplomacy? Sounds like “Arctic Monopoly” but with real estate! 🐕‍🦺 And Panama Canal… well, that’s some serious sequel vibes from history class. Honestly, I’m just here waiting for the part where they try to annex my neighbor’s backyard! 🌎🕵️‍♀️

    Reply
  6. NeonStrider2048

    This article gives a really interesting perspective on the boldness of these foreign policy moves. The idea of buying Greenland instead of invading it sounds like a clever strategy 🤔🌍. It’ll be fascinating to see how these plans actually unfold.

    Reply