As it turns out — and I doubt this’ll surprise anybody — what Donald Trump on Wednesday described as a “framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland” is really nothing more than a mutual understanding within NATO that the alliance should prioritize the island’s security as new shipping routes open up.
According to the scientific community (which Trump distrusts), the central Arctic may be fully-passable by 2050, with far-reaching ramifications for commerce, yes, but for geo-strategy and security too.
This was long foretold. In 2013, writing for the National Academy of Sciences’s flagship peer-reviewed journal, researchers at the University of California said new trans-Arctic shipping routes would be “navigable by midcentury.” Nearly a decade later, Nature noted that Arctic sea ice “is thinning so fast that open-water vessels could ply northern shipping routes within decades.” And so on.
Long story short, climate change (which Trump habitually derides as a hoax) is opening the sea lanes around Greenland. Those routes are becoming more navigable, and that, Mark Rutte told the American media on Thursday, needs to be addressed from a security perspective.
“[W]e have to spend more energy, more time, more focus on this because we know the sea lanes are opening up,” Rutte, one of the only people in the world capable of reasoning with Trump, told Bloomberg, adding that this week’s discussions didn’t include any plan for a larger US military deployment to Greenland, nor was the island’s sovereignty up for debate.
That said, Denmark remains (note the emphasis) “completely open” to more US involvement in Greenland’s security and, presumably, development.
Importantly, that’s always been the case. As everyone other than Trump and his surrogates have been at pains to emphasize these past three weeks, Denmark never said “no” to anything the US wanted in Greenland short of annexation. This was a completely manufactured crisis rooted entirely in Trump’s vanity and delusions of late-19th century grandeur.
I don’t want to overstate the case, so let me put it this way: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to suggest that Denmark would’ve been open to an exponentially larger US military presence on Greenland and heavy US infrastructure development, including preliminary work on some manner of ICBM defense system, contingent upon sufficient buy-in from the locals.
And let’s face it, buy-in from locals probably wouldn’t have been difficult to come by in the context of a populace already keen to carve out an identity separate and distinct from its benefactors in Copenhagen. Not that Greenlanders want that identity to be American (they almost surely don’t, particularly not now), but you get the idea: This was only contentious because Trump made it contentious with his William McKinley shtick.
As far as anyone could tell from Rutte’s remarks, what was offered to Trump in Davos this week didn’t differ materially (if it differed at all), from what envoys from Denmark and Greenland proposed during a fraught meeting with Marco Rubio and JD Vance in Washington last week.
So, no, there’s no “deal” for Greenland, or if there is, it’s a “deal” like the series of bilateral trade MOUs Trump signed last year are “deals.”
To be fair to Trump, he did use the word “framework,” which is at least closer to accurate when it comes to describing what came out of the discussions in Davos. I’d go with “understanding,” but even that might be too strong.
Late Wednesday, during an ad hoc interview with CNBC, Trump channeled his characterization of a GOP health plan from the infamous debate with Kamala Harris, calling the Greenland understanding “A concept of a deal.”
He went on to tell Joe Kernen — whose obsequious fawning is unbecoming of a 70-year-old man — that Europe’s “going to be involved in the Golden Dome and they’re going to be involved in mineral rights, and so are we.”
Asked later how long the deal — or framework or arrangement or whatever you want to call it — is supposed to last, Trump said, “It’s a deal that’s forever. It’s what’s called an ‘infinite deal.'”
An infinite deal. Somewhat akin to a marriage.
The infinite, forever TACO stand remains open.
To quote Stanley Hudson, “This here is a run out the clock situation.”
Anyone “negotiating” with Trump has the playbook right in front of them. Flatter and delay. Those hamberders will do their job eventually.
Early in the life of CNBC I thought I heard a rumor that Joe sold vacuum cleaners door-to-door. He certainly in no way could be taken as a world-renowned pundit.
I’d say most of what Joe does ‘is unbecoming a 70 year old man’.
His handlers talked him down from the tree limb he was sawing on, while sitting on the wrong side. Ho Hum, another Trump fantasy crushed !
Danish CEO/Founder Lars Christensen puts it: “Americans live in the illusion that the US can do everything on its own, despite the fact that the US for nearly 20 years has lived beyond its means. US private and government consumption has been funded by, among others, European central banks and pension funds. But we now have to ask ourselves — why would we trade in dollars? Why would we put our savings into US Treasury bonds? If the US is not a rules-based society, we cannot trust the dollar to be a stable currency, and it would be insane to hold dollars. As domestic US institutions are eroded and governance structures destroyed, the US will be turned into an emerging market economy — or more accurately, a de-merging economy. If the US threatens the territory of allies, then the US acts as an authoritarian bully nation. Nobody in their right mind would lend money to the US government. If the US doesn’t live up to its international obligations and respect the sovereignty of other nations, why would we expect the US government to honour its debts? If Trump can tariff nations that will not give up their territory, then there is certainly no reason to believe that the US will not introduce capital controls. And if that is a risk, why would you risk investing in the US? It is not a question about Europe standing up to the US. It is a question about being prudent with our investments — about reducing risks.”
Gimpy, thanks for posting that, I hadn’t seen it. It’s nice to read opinion that’s straightforward and rests on logic and political ass protecting. Trump’s the guy holding a gun to your head telling you to make him an omelette. I know I’d do it, but if he turned his back I’d hit him as hard as I could with the frying pan. In the months ahead, we’re going to find out a lot about our political and business leaders’ spines. For those like Jeff Bezos, we already have a pretty good idea as he’s paid 9 figures in protection money to the Capo. There was an article today about Amazon providing ICE video access to Ring doorbell archived data.
H-Man, Karl Rove posted an opinion in the WSJ and it was not pretty for the Republican party. If I had to guess, Rove will have the FBI knocking on his door in the morning to discuss “insurrection”.