US President Donald Trump has said he may impose trade tariffs on countries that do not support his plans to take over Greenland.

“I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security,” Mr Trump said at the White House.

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 days ago

    American here (not a Trump fan).

    There’s three things we should be looking at IMHO.


    First- Trump is a publicity man, an actor. He understands the camera.

    Think of a magic show. You have the magician and the cute assistant in a swimsuit. So when they set up the trick the assistant is flourishing her hands and dancing over the stage to distract you from noticing that the magician palmed your card instead of shuffling it back into the deck.

    Trump understands this. And he knows how to play both the magician and the assistant.

    So if he says something wild like this, understand he WANTS attention on that statement, which probably means he DOESN’T want attention on something else. Like Epstein. If those files have any kind of actual proof he partook in Epstein’s services, there’s a good chance that an impeachment might actually succeed to conviction. Because it’s easy to ‘stand with your party leader’, it’s a lot harder to say ‘yes I stand by my vote that the guy in the picture with his dick in a 14yo girl should stay President’.

    Point being- whenever Trump says something outrageous like this, your first question should be 'what DOESN’T he want me paying attention to?


    Second- understand that USA literally cannot annex Greenland by force. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, and Denmark is a member of NATO. If the US invades Denmark, all other NATO companies are OBLIGATED to provide military support. So that would basically kick USA out of NATO, and you can bet your bottom dollar that not only NATO but also Russia, China, North Korea, etc would all fall over themselves to ‘help respect and defend the sovereign territory of Denmark from illegal invasion’. That very quickly becomes a ‘US vs Rest Of World’ war and even with our giant military there’s NO chance we win against the entire rest of the planet combined. Plus militarily we would be isolated, ostracized from the world economy.

    Americans understand this. Our government understands this. Congress understands this. Even if Trump does not, Congress would not authorize such a war.

    As for tariffs- Congress is much more hesitant to curtail Trump’s tariff powers, but their tolerance has a limit (somewhere). It’s one thing to enact tariffs ‘to protect American manufacturing’, they’ll generally tolerate a ‘good faith’ effort like that. But when the tariff becomes punitive to countries that aren’t supporting an annexation that obviously isn’t going to happen, I think Congress might step in.


    Third- While this all may well be a distraction or a strategy, it is doing actual harm to our international relations. If I was a citizen of EU, AU, Asia, etc, I would be saying 'the US can no longer be trusted to lead the world economy, the rest of the world needs to find a solution where the US is ‘one among many’ not calling the shots. And a big part of that would likely be a different worldwide reserve currency. Because right now this is like being on a bus where every few minutes the driver jokes about swerving in front of an oncoming semi truck- even if he won’t do it, you still don’t want to be on that bus.


    What this also means is that the next Presidential election is important not just for American internal politics but for determining what our place in the world will be going forward. While Trump is ineligible to be re-elected, I think it’s important that the US send a clear message this isn’t the sort of statesmanship that we want representing us. That DOESN’T mean blindly vote blue. It means vote in primaries, vote for candidates who act like statesmen.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 days ago

      So you’re saying EU needs to threaten with an Epstein Tariff Retaliation Program and keep throwing the name around until he backs off in a weaponized Streisand effect?

      • coredev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 days ago

        Couldn’t they just rename Greenland to Epstein Island? “USA need Epstein Island for our security” would be pretty hard to sell.

        • I_Jedi@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Trump is way ahead of you. I believe he wants to rename Greenland to Red White and Blueland. Europe renaming the island will advance those naming plans.

    • ɯᴉuoʇuɐ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      If the US invades Denmark, all other NATO companies are OBLIGATED to provide military support. So that would basically kick USA out of NATO,

      The other countries can simply not oblige (and thus kill NATO). That’s the more realistic option.

      and you can bet your bottom dollar that not only NATO but also Russia, China, North Korea, etc would all fall over themselves to ‘help respect and defend the sovereign territory of Denmark from illegal invasion’.

      Lol no they wouldn’t. Neither would they care about who owns Greenland (except probably Russia), neither would they waste immense amounts of money and manpower to fight the biggest military and economy in the world for no real gain, and neither would 2/3 of the listed countries (Ru, NK) be able to do anything serious against US anyway (outside of suicidally throwing nukes at it).

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The other countries can simply not oblige (and thus kill NATO). That’s the more realistic option.

        I don’t see it.

        Sure, the various NATO countries who aren’t Denmark can simply say ‘sorry man we’re out’ and dissolve NATO. Or just refuse to comply, damn the consequences.
        They won’t though, because in many cases the threat of NATO is the only thing protecting them.
        Look at Eastern Europe on the Russian border- Finland, Estonia, Latvia. Belarus is a RU puppet and Ukraine might lose their war so we can include Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania too. Russia has Navy assets in the Black Sea so you can also consider Bulgaria and Turkey.
        If NATO went away tomorrow, do you really think Russia wouldn’t try to gobble one or two of them up? You really think they wouldn’t succeed in at least one or two cases?

        And what about Canada? They’re a NATO member and they have real military force. Same with UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany.

        Do any of them WANT to go up against USA? Of course not.
        If the US truly went rogue and invaded a sovereign nation, would they do it? Probably, because if they didn’t, there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t be next.

        Lol no they wouldn’t. Neither would they care about who owns Greenland (except probably Russia), neither would they waste immense amounts of money and manpower to fight the biggest military and economy in the world for no real gain, and neither would 2/3 of the listed countries (Ru, NK) be able to do anything serious against US anyway (outside of suicidally throwing nukes at it).

        They DGAF about Greenland. Greenland isn’t worth shit.
        But for any of them to reduce the US’s role in the world economy or worldwide diplomacy, that’s a golden opportunity.
        Thing is they needn’t commit huge resources to the war. Just a small force that would be able to make it hurt for the US, and the real war is fought in the media. It gives them a chance to be the heroes and paint US as the villain.

        • ɯᴉuoʇuɐ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Lumping Baltic countries together with Hungary and Slovakia shows you don’t actually know much about the political situation there and shouldn’t try to make predictions about them.

          The rest of your comment is too implausible for me to want to discuss it in detail. I really don’t get the impression you’ve actually thought through any of the scenarios you’re coming up with. Canada fighting the most powerful military in the world that completely surrounds it on land? China attacking its biggest individual trading partner (by teleporting soldiers onto the other side of the world somehow) and having anything to gain from destabilising the world economy? Wars aren’t carried out in the media, Trump won’t be stopped and Greenland won’t be defended with a new round of “Trump bad” articles in US media.

          Probably, because if they didn’t, there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t be next.

          The powerful ones simply wouldn’t be next. Weak ones might be, but they in particular won’t be able to do shit about Greenland.

          The conflict, if it comes to it, will play out through less direct means.