I’m reminded of how he tore up NAFTA only to sign a very similar agreement. He needs to show that he’s winning, even if it’s pretend.
Unless the “security” agreement is that Trump won’t order an invasion if all of Greenland’s mineral rights are signed over to US corporations.
Denmark, as expected, says Trump is full of shit.
This from Trump’s Greenland Truth Social post today illustrates something that I did not want to post before because it is hard to do without seeming paranoid:
So, on the one hand, it looks like the risk of U.S. annexation is averted. But if Trump goes through with putting a U.S. military presence in “many” parts of Greenland, and he changes his mind on annexation, military resistance to the U.S. will be more difficult.
To really go dark, suppose that Trump is determined to annex Greenland with few U.S. casualties. Doesn’t this so-called agreement help there? A smart annexation plan would say to gradually take over without clarity as to when the Article 5 line had been crossed.
That’s a big if. The military is stretched to the breaking point right now with the Iran boondoggle and the National Guard being misused to pick up litter in DC. I’m not sure the 2 years and 4 months he has left is going to be enough time for any kind of significant buildup.
I don’t think those issues would prevent Trump from starting a war, since the regular ground troops are not depleted and he has already been shown to start wars he can’t win.
The only question that our war readiness raises is how well we’d do in a contested war, and maybe how much the war would be contested versus a fait accompli. But a completely “successful” fait accompli would already be 75% as bad for America as a hot war would be, so whether or not our forces are prepared to face a near peer or even succeed in preventing that by overwhelming force seems moot to me.
A broader security deal in Greenland would give the US an off-ramp for Trump’s sabber rattling and would be good for the US. I’m not sure that Denmark needs a deal though – who else do they need protection from, but the US?
I expect Panama is safe for the time being, given the disruption in Hormuz.
The only good thing about Trump is that he is adverse to US casualties. If there is another military operation, I would expect it to mimic Venezuela; Cuba being the obvious target. It seems like Rubio would benefit most from such an operation. Maybe (hopefully) there’s enough of a power struggle in the Administration that they’re all locked into a stalemate.
I’ve heard others mention Trump being adverse to US casualties, so it seems common(ish) knowledge. What makes you say that? Not challenging you, @CaveMike . It just seem too intelligent and humane a stance for him to take.
For now. A year ago, he was averse to starting wars. All it takes is someone convincing him that great leaders don’t mind such losses.
He knows that the American public (including his base) won’t respond well to American casualties, which is why he adverse to them.
Perhaps. But I’d wager the American public would shrug away any casualties, even in great numbers.
Thanks, Dewey. I guess I realize the reasoning but am more wondering if that’s his actual, personal stance, or if we all just assume it, because duh. I’m guessing War Criminal Kegsbreath feels the direct opposite. I wonder if they’ve argued about it.
He’s called those who served “losers” or “suckers” so I very much doubt he actually cares about any casualties.
I’m glad you raised this because it made me realize that I don’t actually know. It’s been “common knowledge” since his first term, but I don’t know if he ever said that or if it’s just speculation by others.
However, his reluctance to escalate the attack on Iran with ground forces is probably a stronger argument than anything he or others have said.
Yeah, agreed. When he was reelected I thought “At least he doesn’t start any wars”. Hegseth’s influence and Trump’s failing mental state make any scenario possible. But again, I’d expect an escalation in Iran before a new war.
If he weren’t averse to casualties, he’d actually have invaded Kharg Island by now instead of just making empty threats and posting AI slop about it.
Again, he’s only averse to casualties because it’s unpopular, not because he cares about the people who die or are injured.
I don’t know if I agree with your premise here. I think he hasn’t invaded because he’s not a person who does things, but who bullies by issuing threats and withholding things. Invading isn’t either of those things, but threatening to invade is.
Occasionally, he will do things (cf. the war with Iran itself), when he has been convinced by someone else, but even then he’ll do it in a half-assed way.
Woe betide us if he ever does get serious about the war and tries to lead: we’ll see casualties then, all right.
Why is this no surprise? He’s desperately deflecting from all the bad press by doing one outlandish thing after another. I guess he figures if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick.
I’m hearing now that Denmark actually “won” the new agreement with Trump. The new agreement essentially has all the same terms the old 1951 agreement had. But now it includes an article saying that all American rights to station troops in Greenland are contingent in the United States being a member of NATO.
So if Trump announces he is withdrawing the United States from NATO he will lose all American access in Greenland.
The old agreement from 2004 was made under Nato.
Article 2
NATO Status of Forces Agreement
1. The Parties note that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (NATO SOFA) has applied in Greenland since 1955.
2. The Parties agree that the terms of Article VII of the Defense Agreement shall apply as a supplementary agreement to the NATO SOFA between the Parties.
3. The Parties agree that the terms of Article VIII of the Defense Agreement are superseded by the corresponding provisions of the NATO SOFA.
4. The Parties agree that the terms of Article IX of the Defense Agreement shall apply as a supplementary agreement to the NATO SOFA between the Parties.
5. The Parties agree that the first sentence of Article X of the Defense Agreement is deleted, and that the term »such NATO agreement« in that Article refers to the NATO SOFA.