Upgrade Subscription

Give a gift subscription

Share The Bismarck Cables

• It looks like, at least for now, we are off the brink.
• Today, on his first day at Davos, during his rambling one-hour speech, Trump announced that he would not use force to take Greenland.
• (side note: a speech that was increasingly incoherent, and which stood in stark contrast to the oratory skills displayed by Mark Carney of Canada yesterday, who also received far more standing applause)
• Now, he did say, however, that if Europeans did not agree to give up Greenland, the United States, quote, “would remember.”
• But at least for now, he ruled out the use of force. He categorically said he won’t use the ‘‘unstoppable force’’ of U.S. military.
• In addition, and following his meeting with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, Trump also announced a climbdown on tariffs—specifically, backing away from the 10% tariffs that were supposed to kick into effect on February 1st on countries that had shown the most support for Greenland and had sent troops for joint exercises.
• (side note: those deployments were meant to signal commitment to the defense of Greenland, which Trump had misconstrued as a willingness to fight back against the United States with military force.)
• So here we have it then: in a matter of days, we have seen a complete U-turn and climbdown on Greenland: the use of force ruled out, and even the threat of tariffs abandoned.
• Over the many days of the Greenland crisis (which began on Saturday with the announcement of tariffs) we posted several times outlining the following points:
• 1) Greenland is strategically important.
• 2) Most of Greenland’s strategic value is already being met through non-acquisition means.
• 3) Even if the United States wanted to acquire Greenland, the sequencing of events and the manner of approach were completely wrong.
• The U.S. should have relied on soft power (on attraction, on creating a desire among Greenlanders, the free people of the country, to align themselves with the United States) and only then discussed the particulars of a potential transaction.
• Instead, Donald Trump began with threats against long-standing allies.
• 4) Imposing tariffs and threatening the use of force against NATO allies was unacceptable in pursuit of any of these goals and would cause far more harm in the long term (potentially ending NATO altogether) and had already caused significant damage to U.S. credibility, reliability, and prestige.
• So disaster has, for now, been averted.
• But what was all of this theater for?
• What did the United States gain?
• Absolutely nothing.
• It gained distrust.
• It gained Mark Carney’s Davos speech announcing the end of U.S. benign hegemony and calling on countries to stick together against what he described as a more malicious form of hegemony.
• (side note: During his speech, Carney referenced the famous Czech dissident Vaclav Havel’s words. Luckily for Canadians, Trump likely has no idea who Havel is and probably doesn’t know much about dissidents fighting for liberty against the Soviet Union.)
• It gained Europeans speaking in the same language, with the Belgian Prime Minister stating at Davos, “Being a happy vassal is one thing, but a miserable slave is quite another.”
• It also forced all EU countries to close ranks and push back hard against Trump, and will no doubt start the clock on their increasing hedging behavior.
• We already see this with Canada hedging through new deals with China.
• Of course, on the merits, one can argue (and many will) that granting access to Chinese EVs to Canada is not a good deal.
• But merits aside, this is hedging behavior from America’s closest northern ally.
• And what can one expect when the President of the United States is sharing memes depicting Canada covered in U.S. flags?