Irrevocably
Trump’s posturing over Greenland has irrevocably changed the transatlantic relationship, even after he backed away Wednesday from his threats of a US takeover of the Danish autonomous territory, European officials told CNN.
One European diplomat, speaking anonymously, described the last week as a “whirlwind of absurdity that damages transatlantic relations, distracts from Ukraine, and makes China and Russia very happy.”
…
Trump ruled out using military force to annex Greenland in his keynote speech at Davos on Wednesday, and he went on to drop his threatened tariffs and announce “the framework of a future deal” over the island after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
But the diplomatic chaos he unleashed over the last two weeks still lingers, with profound ramifications for the US-European economic and diplomatic relationship. A key group of European Parliament members blocked a vote to ratify a US-European trade deal Wednesday, underscoring the tensions between the transatlantic allies.
Of course it lingers. Trump has made it all too clear how reckless and clueless he is, and the fact that he retreats just a little when the adults push back does not mean he has become not reckless and clueless. He will never become that.
Trump ruled out using military force to annex Greenland in his keynote speech at Davos on Wednesday, and he went on to drop his threatened tariffs and announce “the framework of a future deal” over the island after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
But the diplomatic chaos he unleashed over the last two weeks still lingers, with profound ramifications for the US-European economic and diplomatic relationship. A key group of European Parliament members blocked a vote to ratify a US-European trade deal Wednesday, underscoring the tensions between the transatlantic allies.
When you have a deranged ignorant lunatic to deal with you don’t relax.
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre emphasized that “NATO countries are cooperating day-by-day very closely.”
“Europe has its challenges. The United States has its challenges,” he told CNN. “But they’re all strong democracies, and they are allies in NATO. … We have great security to look after us and a very proud history of collaborating on that.”
Not really. The United States is not currently a strong democracy. It’s far too vulnerable to the deranged monstrous presider to be strong.
Stupid reporters. DJT did no such thing; he did what Lucy van Pelt does when she “rules out” pulling the football away from Charlie Brown when he runs up to kick it. It’s just not a fact that DJT “ruled out” using military force to take Greenland. The best that can be said is that he said that he wouldn’t use military force, but DJT “says” a lot of things in a particular moment that he doesn’t mean. IOW, he is a proven liar; you can’t take his representations as being in any way true. If his bullying meets any pushback, he might momentarily mouth words to mollify the opposition, but he’s as opportunistic as it comes. The moment negative pressure lets up, he’s right back to bullying. Journalists know this. They can’t report on this man as if he is an ordinary politician. They do everyone a disservice if they pretend that his words mean anything. They don’t. He lies, ALL. THE. TIME. It’s almost as if reporters should put a caveat on anything DJT says: “He said he wouldn’t deploy military force, but his statements can’t be relied upon.”
His contractual promises, for example, are never undertaken as actual obligations. They are merely the starting point from which to wage war against the other contracting party. Breaching contracts is his business model. He can’t take an honest oath to anything. (Makes me wonder if he isn’t disqualified from being president on that ground alone. The office-holder is constitutionally required to take a specific oath, and I would hold that the Constitution implies a requirement of sincerity. It’s like crimes: there’s not merely what you do (actus reus), but also the intent with which you do it (mens rea). There are a few regulatory crimes, where doing the act is all that’s required to find liability (guilt). But most traditional crimes require findings not merely that an act was done, but also a finding of some level of criminal intent. Contracts also generally require not merely a set of words, but also a unity of intent. If there is not a meeting of the minds as to the subject or the terms of the contract, no contract is formed. I argue the same applies to oaths as to other promises or other acts with material effects. The oath-taker is Constitutionally presumed to have the minimum common cultural value that oaths mean something. It’s not just the formalistic repetition of syllables, devoid of any intent element to carry out the promise of the oath. The Presidential oath can only properly be taken when the President-elect has the mental intent to perform the oath, as a promise. However, it’s patently obvious that promises and oaths mean nothing to DJT. He can’t make an honest promise or take an honest oath.)
He is such a selfish, grabby, baby. If he wants something, he has a right to have it, in his little narcissistic, solipsistic mind. No one else, and nothing else, matters to him. He doesn’t care who or what he hurts, as long as he doesn’t get hurt himself. When the coward thinks he might get hurt, he changes what he says, but there’s no reason whatever to think he means it, if he sees another opportunity to grab what he wants. He’s dangerous, and journalists should not report what he says as if it’s at all real.
maddog1129 #1
Exactly!
There is one important caveat, though: When Trump is threatening to do something bad (not accepting the result of an election, weaponizing the legal system to go after anyone who ever got in the way of his authoritarian agenda, deploying armed forces against civilians etc), it’s generally worth taking note. People have too often fallen into the trap of assuming his threats are are just “trolling”, when in fact Trump is at his most honest when he’s at his nastiest. If he ever promises to do something good, like offering any meaningful assistance to Ukraine or the Iranian rebels, it shouldn’t even be taken as an indication of his real intentions.
(My last sentence above obviously also applies to the famous Article 5 “guarantee”. If A is the probability that Trump’s America is going come to the aid of Europe in the event of a Russian attack, and B is the probability that they are going to take part of Europe’s territory by force, despite Trump’s supposed reinsurances, the ratio of A to B is for all practical intents and purposes equal to zero. Hence, NATO is already dead, and we should all stop talking as if it weren’t.)