Greenland is needed – to be able to leave NATO
Why does Donald Trump have to have Greenland?
None of what he says openly is true.
There is, unfortunately, only one logical reason.
On one point, Trump is right:
The USA cannot allow Russia or China to control Greenland.
The world's largest island is unequivocally important, and is becoming increasingly important, in the new evil world's great power competition.
The radar stations in Greenland give the USA early warning of Russian nuclear attacks. The island provides the opportunity to control the North Atlantic and the new sea routes that the melting ice opens through the Arctic. There are enormous amounts of rare earth metals there, and perhaps even more undiscovered natural resources.
All of these are things the US points to as reasons for taking over the island.
– Greenland is very important for national security, as Donald Trump says.
The mystery at the heart of the crisis, however, is that all the goals the US claims can be achieved without the island changing hands.
The US has essentially unlimited access to Greenland. If it wants to build up its military or extract natural resources, the door is open.
All security problems can be solved within the framework of NATO.
Assuming, of course, that it is a member of NATO.
Unfortunately, that is the crux of the matter.
When Donald Trump himself tries to explain why Denmark cannot simply continue to own the island, it sounds less like objective analysis and more like metaphysical mumbo jumbo:
– Ownership is very important. That is what I feel is psychologically necessary for success.
If none of the reasons openly stated by the US hold up, a first conclusion is inevitable:
Something else must be behind it.
There is no shortage of conceivable alternatives :
- Trump-friendly oligarchs who want to make money.
- Megalomania and speed blindness, after the Venezuela raid.
- A demonstration of power, for the sake of power itself (“We live in a world, the real world ... that is ruled by strength, that is ruled by force, that is ruled by power”, as Trump advisor Stephen Miller says).
- Pure madness and mental confusion (the letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre does not exactly breathe mental health).
I won't write off any factor completely, but given the political and economic costs of the project, all that has limited explanatory value.
There is probably only one explanation that logically holds up all the way:
The only scenario in which allied control of Greenland is not enough is one in which the United States is no longer an ally.
Philosopher Karim Jebari, who has reasoned in similar terms, concludes that Trump is planning to leave NATO.
You don't have to go that far.
Trump and his circle are clearly hostile to Europe. They say so themselves.
They want to divide us, blackmail us and exercise power over us.
In this, the possibility of leaving NATO, if the situation requires it, is an obvious card the administration wants to play.
But for that to be possible, Greenland cannot belong to Europe.
A serious breach in the transatlantic relationship would have incalculable consequences. Almost infinitely negative, even for the United States. Not least, the loss of military bases in Germany, Italy and Poland would seriously damage the US's ability to project its power into the world, for example to the Middle East.
But not having control over Greenland would be even worse, and would pose a direct security threat to the American mainland.
It would go against the very dominance in the Western Hemisphere, the "Donroe Doctrine", which is the top priority of the new national security strategy.
In the 1980s, real estate magnate Donald Trump identified ”leverage” - an advantage, a holding hook - as among the most important things a negotiator can have.
In European hands, Greenland is "leverage" for us.
That is what he cannot allow.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar