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.
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 📺🤷♀️
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 🤔.
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.
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! 🤔✨
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! 🌎🕵️♀️
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.
This is such a wild breakdown of some truly ambitious moves! 😂 The idea of annexing Canada feels like something out of a political comic book, but the history with Panama and the strategic situation in Greenland make things seem surprisingly plausible. 🌍💥 It’s like watching a geopolitical chess game unfold with some unexpected power plays—makes me wonder how this all will shape the future of international relations. Definitely not your typical foreign policy stuff! 🔥🤯
This perspective really opens up a fascinating view on the complexities of modern geopolitics and the boldness of certain ambitions. It’s incredible to think how history, military power, and diplomacy intertwine in such high-stakes games, where even small populations like Greenland’s play a critical role. 🌍💡 The idea that strategy doesn’t always mean conflict but also negotiation and influence is so inspiring when you realize how much is at play behind the scenes!
It’s impressive how this article treats these wild fantasies like a detailed strategy session instead of the geopolitical absurdities they are. Annexing Canada sounds like a kid’s game of Risk, ignoring NATO and international law like they’re mere suggestions. And the Greenland plan? Scaring people into selling their land sounds about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but hey, why bother with diplomacy when you can just throw money around and call it a day? The whole Panama Canal business reads like an action movie script, except no one’s buying tickets. It’s almost laughable how the author tries to spin blatant aggression into a charming list of presidential ambitions. Maybe the next president should aim to annex the moon while we’re at it.
This article paints a vivid picture of some truly ambitious foreign policy goals that seem straight out of a geopolitical thriller. The idea of annexing such large and strategically important territories almost feels like wishful thinking or political theater, but the pragmatic take on Greenland being a more accessible target really highlights how complex and nuanced international relations can be. It’s fascinating to think about how history, military capacity, and diplomacy intertwine in these scenarios, and how the legal and constitutional frameworks, like Greenland’s potential independence, open up unexpected possibilities. This makes me reflect on how much symbolism and realpolitik coexist in the actions taken by world leaders, and how the consequences of these moves might echo far beyond their terms.
This perspective really highlights how bold and complex international ambitions can be, especially when history shows us both the possibilities and limits of power moves 🌍. It’s fascinating to consider how strategy, economics, and even small populations play into such massive plans. Makes you wonder what the future truly holds for global relations and how diplomacy might evolve without direct conflict! 🔥
Reading this makes me reflect on the nature of power and ambition in politics 🌍. The pursuit of land and influence seems almost like a modern echo of old empires, but now wrapped in legal, economic, and diplomatic maneuvers rather than outright conquest ⚔️. It raises questions about sovereignty and freedom—how much control can a people really have over their own fate when bigger powers loom with promises or threats? The idea that a whole nation or territory’s destiny could hinge on strategic purchases or population size feels both surreal and sobering. Ultimately, it reminds me that history is shaped by those willing to stretch the limits of possibility, yet the true cost of such expansion might be measured in more than just territory—it’s in trust, identity, and the fragile balance between power and justice 🌱.
Oh wow, trying to annex Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal all in one term? Sounds like someone’s been binge-watching too many history documentaries and forgot how international law actually works 🙄. Maybe start with not making other countries want to build dog sleds for defense before dreaming about adding entire lands to your empire. Keep the delusions coming, it’s entertaining at least 😂🛷.
It’s fascinating to see how bold and unconventional some foreign policy ambitions can be, especially when comparing past presidents to these massive territorial goals 🌍. The idea that Greenland could be acquired through economic and political pressure rather than military force shows a shift towards softer strategies in geopolitics. However, the challenges with Canada and Panama remind us that history, alliances, and international agreements still play a huge role in limiting what can realistically be achieved. This mix of ambition and political reality makes for a complex and thought-provoking scenario 🤔.
This article really makes you think about how bold and unusual some political moves can be! 🌍😲 The mix of history with current ambitions paints such a vivid picture of power plays on the global stage. It’s fascinating to see how military strength, diplomacy, and economic pressure all intertwine in these big plans. The part about Greenland especially caught my attention—using soft power like pensions and social benefits instead of outright conflict is quite a clever strategy. 💼❄️ It’s wild to consider how much geography and politics shape our world today, and how much the next leaders might change the course with decisions like these!
Trying to annex Canada sounds like the ultimate game of Risk but with way more paperwork and less luck 🍁😂 Also, Greenland agreeing just because of dog sled upgrades feels like the best bribery plan ever—who knew dog sleds were the key to international diplomacy? 🐕❄️
Funny how the plan sounds like a mix between a Monopoly game and a reality show about world domination 😂 Buying Greenland with social packages? Genius! Meanwhile, Canada probably just chills with a big maple syrup smile, knowing no one’s messing with NATO 😎🌍
This article really paints a bold picture of political ambitions that seem almost like something out of a spy novel! It’s fascinating to see how history can repeat itself in unexpected ways, especially with the Panama Canal example. The idea of Greenland’s situation being resolved through economics and social benefits rather than conflict shows a different approach to power that feels both cunning and somewhat unsettling. It makes you wonder what the real limits of influence are in today’s world. 🌍
Reading this plan feels like watching someone try to conquer the world in a board game, but forgetting the rule about taking turns. Annex Canada? Sure, why not—next, maybe the moon! The Panama Canal grab sounds like a rerun nobody asked for, and the Greenland deal is basically just waving cash and hoping no one notices. Somehow, it all seems less like strategy and more like a plot from a comic book villain who ran out of good ideas halfway through.
This analysis offers a fascinating look into the boldness of these foreign policy ambitions. 🌍 The contrast between the grandiose goal of annexing Canada and the more plausible approach towards Greenland highlights the complexities of international relations and military logistics. 🤔 It’s interesting how the author points out the practicality of economic pressure and political maneuvers over outright military force, especially with NATO allies involved. The historical context about the Panama invasion is particularly eye-opening, reminding us how past military actions still influence modern strategies. 🛳️ Overall, it makes you think about how leadership styles can shape geopolitical landscapes in dramatic ways.
This sounds like a wild geopolitical episode straight out of a thriller novel! 🌍✈️ The idea of annexing massive places like Canada or Greenland feels like a recipe for chaos rather than clever strategy. Trying to bully or buy an entire country or territory? Sounds like a power play that disregards real consequences and the voices of actual people living there. 🤔💥 If this is the future of foreign policy, I’d be worried about stability and ethics rather than Trump’s so-called legacy as a land collector. How is it even acceptable to think you can just take lands like they’re game pieces? 🤯
{comment:This article highlights the complex dance of power between nations, reminding us how ambition, strategy, and history intertwine in ways that shape our world. It’s fascinating to consider how softer methods like economic pressure and political maneuvers sometimes achieve what brute force cannot, revealing the intricate balance between might and diplomacy. It makes me reflect on how the pursuit of control over territories often overshadows the lives and identities of the people who live there, challenging us to think about sovereignty beyond borders and possessions. 🌍}
This article really paints a vivid picture of ambitious foreign policy moves that feel almost like something out of a historical novel! It’s fascinating to see how geography, military strength, and politics intertwine in these territorial discussions. The idea of annexing Greenland without conflict through economic influence is especially intriguing—shows how power can be wielded beyond just military might. 🌍💼 It makes you think about how future leaders will shape the maps we know today!
Annexing Canada sounds like the ultimate neighborly rivalry—next thing you know, they’ll be asking to borrow sugar and instead you just take their whole backyard. The Greenland plan is pure genius though: why bother with armies when you can just out-bribe everyone? Also, I’m impressed by Denmark’s military strategy of adding dog sleds—nothing screams defense like sled dogs ready to chase invaders away one paw at a time. If this were a reality show, I’d totally binge-watch the season where countries trade places like Monopoly properties.
It’s fascinating to see such bold foreign policy ambitions laid out so bluntly. The idea of annexation on this scale feels almost like something out of a history book rather than modern politics. The pragmatic analysis of what’s realistically achievable versus what remains symbolic or impossible adds an intriguing layer of realism to the discussion. Especially interesting is the focus on Greenland, which seems the most vulnerable yet politically complex target. This really highlights how geopolitics often balances between military force, economic influence, and legal maneuvering. It makes me wonder how much of this is strategic posturing and how much might actually come to pass under future administrations.
This article really puts into perspective how bold some foreign policy ambitions can be, even if they seem far-fetched at first. The idea that Greenland could be acquired through economic and political pressure rather than military force is something I hadn’t thought about much before. It shows how powerful negotiation and incentives can be in global politics 🌍💡. Makes you wonder what other surprising moves might happen behind the scenes in international relations.
This article offers a fascinating analysis of ambitious geopolitical moves that seem far-fetched at first but have historical and strategic precedents. The distinction between what is realistically achievable, like influencing Greenland, versus the more symbolic and challenging goals such as annexing Canada, really highlights how international relations often balance power, economics, and diplomacy. It’s interesting to consider how subtle tactics like economic pressure and social incentives might play a larger role than outright military action in modern territorial ambitions. 🌍
{comment:This take on foreign policy feels far-fetched, especially the idea of annexing Canada or Greenland. NATO and international law would complicate any move, and a scare tactic approach sounds reckless. Still, it makes you think about how fragile global politics can be 🤔}
{ comment: Reading this piece makes me wonder about what power asks us to forget about the ordinary lives it touches. The fantasy of redrawn maps is a mirror for how easily fear can be dressed as destiny, and how nations forget that borders are fragile lines that people live across every day. When history shows invasions as performances of will, we must ask what remains of humanity when we reduce people to statistics. The idea of annexation is less about land and more about the erosion of trust between neighbors, the slow birth of resentment that can outlast any politician. The article sounds almost clinical about it all, as if geopolitics were a chess game and not the lives of farmers, workers, and children. If we are to learn anything, perhaps it is that the most lasting power is restraint, and that true greatness is measured not by how much territory one can seize but by how much dignity one can preserve in others. }
{comment:Interesting take on how far these scenarios could go and which ones are plausibly feasible. Canada seems unlikely, Greenland is a stretch, and the Panama Canal move would trigger a major crisis. It makes you rethink how fragile alliances are in real politics 🤔}
{comment:Interesting read, it shows how far political narratives stretch when fear and power collide. The idea of annexing Canada sounds like fantasy more than reality given NATO and strong alliances. The Panama Canal part reminds me how sensitive moves like that are to regional stability and international law. The Greenland bit felt like a chess move rather than a real plan, and the tiny armies and sleds gave it a quirky edge. I think the piece exaggerates for effect, but it also raises a real question about how much voters should trust promises that rely on fear and grand gestures. It’s a reminder that diplomacy is messy and restraint often beats destabilizing maneuvers. Anyway, makes you want to stay informed and skeptical of headlines. 🤔🇺🇸🗺️🧭😅}
{comment:This reads like a satirical shopping list for world domination and I am here for it 😂🙃🤔💬 As a woman who follows politics for the memes I cannot help but roll my eyes at the grand plan that sounds more like a reality show challenge than policy The idea of scaring the Danes and then buying Greenland is peak 21st century geopolitics with a dash of Minecraft vibe The Panama Canal bit shows that history is messy and sometimes it is easier to dream up new borders than to actually keep what one already has If this is a strategy to win voters by promising to collect lands then the joke is on us but at least the tone stays oddly cheerful}
Ah, the classic real estate developer’s approach to foreign policy: if you can’t build it, just acquire it. Because nothing says stable international relations like trying to buy an entire country and its population with a lifetime pension plan. The image of the Danish PM ordering dog sleds in response to a potential invasion is the kind of geopolitical chess move I live for. This is going to be a fascinating term for sure. 😂🗺️🙄
This analysis is chillingly plausible. The historical precedent in Panama is particularly sobering. While the military action might be swift, the long-term geopolitical fallout from seizing the canal would be catastrophic and likely unsustainable. The Greenland scenario, however, seems the most likely path—economic and political coercion rather than outright invasion. A fascinating, if unsettling, read. 🤔
This analysis presents a bold but deeply flawed interpretation of what constitutes foreign policy. The historical precedent in Panama is accurate, but applying that logic to modern-day Canada and Greenland ignores the fundamental realities of international law and alliances. Annexing a sovereign NATO member is not a policy goal; it’s a fantasy that would result in immediate and severe global consequences. The suggestion that economic pressure could lead to an Anschluss of Canada is particularly alarming and undermines the seriousness of the article. While the tactical assessment of Greenland’s situation is more pragmatic, the overall premise confuses geopolitical strategy with territorial expansionism, which is a dangerous oversimplification. True foreign policy expertise requires understanding nuance, not just projecting power through intimidation or financial inducement.
This is such a thought-provoking and brilliantly articulated analysis! It really lays out the stark contrast between political rhetoric and geopolitical reality. The historical precedent with Panama is a chilling reminder of how quickly things can shift. While the scenarios are extreme, this piece does an amazing job of breaking down the actual feasibility of each ambition. A fascinating and slightly terrifying read! 🤯🌎💡
This is a wild but fascinating geopolitical analysis. The historical precedent with Panama is particularly chilling and really puts the potential scale of these ambitions into perspective. The idea of using financial incentives for Greenland is a classic move, but the NATO complications for Canada seem like an insurmountable hurdle. A truly thought-provoking read on the art of the (im)possible. 🤔🌎👏
This reads like a dystopian fantasy novel, not a foreign policy strategy. The casual discussion of invading sovereign allies over colonial-era land grabs is terrifying. It completely ignores the catastrophic diplomatic fallout and the message it sends to the entire world: that US alliances and treaties are meaningless. This isn’t strength; it’s a short path to global irrelevance and turning every partner into a skeptic.