Part of Landry’s response to Trump’s social media post included this:
Of course it doesn’t, because it’s not a serious appointment and nothing is going to become of it.
It could be that this whole thread is just playing Trump’s game, but how could one know that?
The fact that the appointee is a part-timer, with no cold weather military experience, argues that Smapti is correct. But the fact that Trump, after pretty much ignoring Greenland for months, has brought it up again does make the Landry appointment newsworthy. Presidents who rule by decree do, from time to time, try to annex territory.
Another recent situation where Trump made a part-time appointment to a full-time job is when he put Domestic Policy Council boss Vince Haley’ in charge of building the arch. Haley is a lawyer who seems to have no construction experience. But Trump is surely serious about having his arch built.
Greenlanders should hope for the best and assume the worst.
They should start by banning that Landry MFr from their country.
At this point, I really think everyone in the Republican party and within the federal government is just humoring Trump because they all know he’s going to die or become permanently incapacitated soon, and they’re never actually going to have to buld a giant marble arch in the middle of DC, or a $400 million ballroom, or 25 steam-powered golden battleships with robot helpers, or occupy and rebuild the Gaza Strip, or any of the other insane ideas that float into his head.
They just nod and say “yes sir” and go back to trying to strip as much copper wire out of the White House as they can, because the Steven Millers and Russ Voughts and RFKs know that once JD is in charge the free-for-all is over.
NOBODY knows more about Greenland than the Governor of Louisiana. I suggest he goes there next month to make a visit. I hear it’s really nice there in January.
And stay as long as he wants. Even longer like 'til the end of the year, no problem. Louisiana can get by just fine without him.
Probably more pleasant than New Orleans in August.
You can always put on another layer, anyway.
Maybe Panama’s fears could be assuaged if kegbreath ran an old feel good commercial,
Unlikely. I expect he has a different definition of “good” than the Panamanians.
I have to acknowledge being wrong, as I though Trump’s first, and maybe only, takeovers would be of Greenland and/or Panama – wholly or just near the canal – and did not think Venezuela.
There are lessons here for Panama and Greenland, but maybe it is too soon to draw them.
The lesson is “sign a defense agreement with China or Russia”.
I don’t think China or Russia have the logistics and power projection capabilities to be of any use in case of U.S. attack against Panama or Greenland.
They could attack U.S. troops/interests in other parts of the world but I doubt they would, it’s not in their best interest to trigger WWIII.
They have nuclear weapons, about the only thing that can deter the US.
Yes, but they won’t use them to defend Panama or Greenland.
Yes, I am afraid so. Just like the USA was never going to use real weapons to defend Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, or even Budapest. Probably not even Berlin or Paris.
But who wants to be the one to call that bluff and turn out to be wrong?
This. Assuming that the other side won’t actually dare to fight you is a good way to sleepwalk into a war; they are not obligated to conform to your assumptions, after all.
Heck, maybe they are thinking the same way; “we can nuke their army because they won’t dare to retaliate”.
I don’t think they’ll want to risk such an escalation.
China doesn’t need Panama or Greenland to be free, in fact they probably already consider them to be U.S. de facto possessions.
Why would they risk anything to avoid de facto becoming more obvious or even de jure?