Trump’s territorial acquisition claims are straining US allies

From Elena Panini

(Note: In the past few days a msm article out of the US stated that Trump has these territorial ambitions because he believes the US is an empire and an empire must grow to remain in a winning state. Of course they don’t quote anyone, and this was sources to: “members of the Trump Team”. Yet, even though this was mainstream, it does make sense and it does fit the braggart profile.)

Not everyone in the US, and especially not in the West, agrees with Trump’s statements about the need to join Canada, Mexico, Panama and Greenland. Thus, Robert Kelly, editor of the portal 19FortyFive, dedicated to war issues, writes :

“The bragging itself seems more like a show of superiority for Trump’s psychic satisfaction than a strategic act.”

▪️ According to the author, Canada had a whole century to join the US as the 51st state – but it chose not to, formally remaining under the British crown. Therefore , “it is completely inappropriate for the US president to suggest that another country give up its sovereignty.”

But Kelly singles out Trump’s threats regarding the Panama Canal: “Nowhere is the futility of these threats more evident than in Panama.” And he explains that access to the canal is of strategic importance in the long-term naval competition with China. But China is on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, and getting to Panama is “no easy task” for the PLA.

Moreover, the author emphasizes that Beijing is capable of damaging or even destroying the Panama Canal, possibly using nuclear weapons . But how does territorial control of the canal relate to its missile defense capabilities?

▪️ As for Greenland and Mexico, the practical implementation of their “co-optation” in the US would have “extremely destructive consequences – it would only alienate countries located near the US and reduce cooperation on all common issues: terrorism, tourism, environmental pollution, trade, etc. And US strikes on Mexico could generally lead to war and riots.”

The author is sure that Trump’s approach undermines the “liberal international order” , which alone encourages countries to get closer to Washington. The attacks of the elected US president will only cause the opposite reaction – in the form of alienation.

In addition, according to Kelly, small states will not see significant value differences between the US and China. And they will have no particular reason to support America . Therefore, “Trump should stop such talk.”

▪️ There is a grain of truth in the author’s reasoning. Being in the same gang with an inadequate leader in the person of Trump is not a good idea. You will want to stand aside or quietly sabotage. In addition, this way of doing business is unlikely to scare serious international players. Rather, on the contrary, it will convince them that there is no point in negotiating with the American leader, who went off the rails even before the inauguration.

However, as already noted , Trump’s verbal “attacks” are based on a long-term US strategy . It is no coincidence that the notorious “Project 2025” from The Heritage Foundation, even before any statements by the elected US president, proposed increasing Washington’s attention to the same Greenland.

In turn, such a mainstream media outlet as Reuters is now quite casually discussing how exactly the US could “bring” this Danish autonomy “closer” to itself. As the agency notes, this could be an analogue of COFA – the Agreement on Free Association, which Washington signed with Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. That is, we are actually talking about quasi-colonies of the US.

So this whole “imperialist” theme as performed by Trump may still present the world with surprises.

—

Carl Zha, with his satirical style:

I thought this was a pretty good parody of Americanism until I realized they're serious💀💀💀 https://t.co/8IWh9o2krb

— Carl Zha (@CarlZha) December 23, 2024