Washington DC 12 JAN 2025
The Greenland Doctrine:
“Unprovoked wars of territorial aggression against any ally who stands between us and the enemy”
People who are not familiar with world geography should examine this map of NE Asia. It may give people a sense of the critical position of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia to the defense of North America.
Like Greenland, these allied and partner countries better get ready for threats of unprovoked war of aggression by the US to protect our vital interests. Why go to war with enemies like Russia and China when you can go to war with allies?
Another Manufactured Crisis
Greenland is a completely artificially manufactured issue that did not exist in the international domain days ago. There are other problems here.
Does America have cause to believe Denmark, a staunch ally by treaty, will undermine, interfere with, or block US interests in favor of an adversary power? No evidence in this regard has been advanced. Even if such a belief was sincerely held on the US side, doesn't the Logan Act prohibit private US citizens from conducting international affairs on behalf of the USG? Surely the law also prohibits threatening allies with an unprovoked war of territorial conquest in the absence of any wrong doing by the allied treaty partner.
Rather, there is overwhelming evidence of the sincerity and commitment of Denmark to the alliance and the United States. Afterall, the Danes did not publicly complain when the US crashed four 1.1Megaton thermonuclear bombs on Greenland. To put that into perspective, 1.1MT is 73 times more powerful than the 15KT bomb dropped on Hirohima.
The conventional high explosive (HE) components of four 1.1 megaton[20] B28FI thermonuclear bombs detonated on impact, spreading radioactive material over a large area in a manner similar to a dirty bomb.[21] "Weak links" in the weapon design ensured that a nuclear explosion was not triggered. The extreme heat generated by the burning of 225,000 pounds (102 t) of jet fuel during the five to six hours after the crash melted the ice sheet, causing wreckage and munitions to sink to the ocean floor.
We should therefore entrust the communication of our interests to treaty partners via diplomacy conducted according to the constitution and the laws.
The threat of war is no way to negotiate the sale of property except perhaps in communities bound by the rule of the Mafia.
China is listening
China can use Trump's Greenland blather to defend aggression towards Taiwan. America has no claim on Denmark. The PRC, however, does have a claim on Taiwan to the extent that we all agree on the One China policy - with the vitally important proviso any change is peaceful and desired by the islanders. Xi can now quote Trump in justifying action outside those parameters. Further, Xi could site a strategic need to defend China's approaches from the 'madman' Trump and his geostrategic land grabs (it cuts both ways eventually).
Trump will not defend Taiwan
Trump will not defend TW. He will see it as a likely US loss, a bi-lat nuclear (N) escalation nightmare, and America will not "get anything" for our trouble (TW semiconductor anyone?)
That puts Australia (AUS), Japan (JP) and South Korea (ROK) in an intractable bind. Without the US, they can’t defend TW. Indeed, they can expect the same support from the US - none. Post invasion, the NE Asians will have no choice but to rapidly develop an independent nuclear deterrent, something the ROK has been vocal about and JP has been quietly considering as a fallback. AUS should follow suit if it wants a cost effective veto on Chinese aggression. Yes nuclear weapons are expensive but AUS can’t meet the PLA ship for ship etc..Not even the US can do that any more!
AUS just deposited the $500m cash into the US Treasury as a first of many down payments as part of the AUKUS Treaty. Naturally, before getting the money, talkshow Pete told everyone Trump was all in on AUKUS. Just wait for the other shoe to drop… it might not happen immediately but it is inevitable. Have you noticed how Trump attacks allies and lavishes praise on enemies? Soon enough those polarities will switch more overtly.
One of the many ironies of AUKUS is the US SSNs, with SLCM-Ns, is the only realistic pathway to an AUS deterrent (and justification for the disproportionate cost of AUKUS). Trump is pro-return of the SLCM-N. Before the cash arrived, talkshow Pete said Trump is pro-AUKUS. What else would he say? But as the Danes just discovered, you can cop being nuked by America as the price of its security guarantee's, but any expectation the US will honor past agreements is contingent on executive whim not policy. AUKUS could be shut down at any point over any issue - real or manufactured. All AUS government's going forward will have to compromise AUS interests to keep in the good books. They might think they can keep up the submission and payments until the 2028 presidential election. Of course that assumes all of Trump's talk over the past 8 years of 3 or more terms is just his wacky sense of humor.
Maga does not care that that there has been an anti-US faction in AUS foreign policy circles for years. Indeed, once it is discovered, its existence could be grounds for terminating AUKUS. This faction did not arise in reaction to Trump. It has been around for years. Nor is it the whining of the Green's and college campus lefties. Former Prime Minister’s on both sides (Fraser & Keating) and senior military strategy and intelligence officials (eg. Hugh White) have been in the vanguard of the anti-US lobby.
The Greenland Doctrine will be a powerful argument for the anti-US faction to attempt to pursuade the pro-US factions they bet on the wrong horse. The AUS DOD's recent strategic review slammed the US for its isolationist turn. It is completely unprecedented for an official policy document to criticise the US. For details, see this post in our sister publication, The Third Offset Strategy.
America's allies are about to get a very rude shock once they realize the true intent of Trump's Greenland Doctrine. It is all part of his greater plan to destroy the rules based international order, abandon our traditional alliances and develop a soft alliance with the other autocracies. This arrangement will be made official at some point once he has fully eradicated all domestic opposition. Likely in his third term.
AL is now ready to prevent things that do not happen.
Great song!
“Likely in his third term. “ His WHAT? He’d be in his late 80s at the end of a third term. Who do you see as his successor? Doesn’t seem like it’s going to be JD (TG).