'Inside Trump’s mother of all climbdowns' + 'America’s New Age of Empire' (by Joseph Stiglitz)

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Sukla Sen

unread,
Jan 23, 2026, 3:20:36 PM (7 days ago) Jan 23
to foil-l, Discussion list about emerging world social movement
[Reproduced below are two significant articles. That should help us quite a bit in comprehending Trump's bullying methods in the realm of foreign relations. While the former one scans his rather abrupt climbdown from his threat of imminent forcible takeover of Greenland from a fellow NATO member, the latter one offers very valuable insight into the broader backdrop of the methods and implications of Trumpism with specific reference to his shocking banditry in Venezuela.]



Inside Trump’s mother of all climbdowns

US president shifted position on Greenland after threatening tariffs based on a misunderstanding
They sit before US and Nato flags
Donald Trump (right) with Mark Rutte, the UN secretary general, at the World Economic Forum in Davos Credit: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Memphis Barker Senior Foreign Correspondent. Joe Barnes Brussels Correspondent. James Rothwell Berlin Correspondent
22 January 2026 10:10pm GMT
Donald Trump was forced into a U-turn shortly after taking off for Davos on board Air Force One on Wednesday morning.
The president’s arrival at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss mountain resort was delayed by several hours because of an electrical fault on the jet.
His departure from Davos later that evening was followed by a flurry of speculation on what had caused a second, more consequential change of course.
For weeks, Mr Trump had demanded the transfer of Greenland to the ownership of the United States.
There had been threats of force, offers of hundreds of billions of dollars, and the announcement of tariffs against European allies who opposed the takeover.
Then on Wednesday night, the president declared an end to the crisis in a post on Truth Social.
Screengrab
Following a one-to-one meeting with Mark Rutte, Nato secretary general, “the framework of a future deal on Greenland” had been agreed, Mr Trump wrote.
He offered no further details, except hailing an “infinite” solution to America’s security concerns. Nor did Mr Rutte provide clarification on what had brought an end – at least for now – to the worst clash for decades between the US and its European allies. “Read the Truth Social post,” he told reporters.
What was undeniably clear was that the US would not be taking full control of the strategically positioned island in the Arctic Circle.

The Telegraph broke the news that the agreement would include sovereign control of the land under US bases, in a similar deal to the arrangement between Britain and Cyprus.
On Thursday, further details began to emerge of a “verbal” agreement with Mr Rutte on potential access to mineral rights and, according to CNN, a ban on Chinese or Russian investment.
However, Mette Frederiksen, Denmark’s prime minister, denied that the US would be granted sovereignty over pockets of Greenland.
Somewhat surprisingly, Mr Rutte claimed that the question of sovereignty did not even come up in his discussion with the US president.

The importance of Greenland's location

Russia
2
3
Pituffik
Space Base
2,000 miles
4
Canada
Moscow
1
Copenhagen
2,000 miles
US
Nuuk
Washington DC
  1. 1Home to some of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements
  2. 2Strategically positioned between US and Russia for missile defence
  3. 3Would help counter China’s growing influence in the Arctic
  4. 4Home to Pituffik Space Base, the Pentagon’s northernmost military outpost
Amid the dearth of official information, insiders put forward a variety of reasons for the unexpected detente.
Some pointed to panic in the markets, one of the few remaining guard-rails against Mr Trump’s more extreme positions. Others suggested that European leaders had forced him to back down with the threat of “bazooka” trade embargoes.
But the roots of the crisis can be partly explained by a transatlantic misunderstanding, The Telegraph was told.
In the wake of the US special forces operation to seize Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan president, an emboldened Mr Trump was casting around for the next target in his campaign to extend American dominance across the Northern hemisphere.
Greenland was the obvious choice: vast, half-heartedly defended and midway between the US, Russia and China. Mr Trump’s aides began to beat the drum for a wholesale takeover.
Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff, repeatedly refused to rule out the use of force in an interview on US television.
It was against this backdrop that, on Jan 8, Nato officials travelled to Brussels for a meeting of the alliance’s decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council.
Among the first to speak was Matthew Whittaker, the US envoy to the alliance. Nato, he said, was failing to protect Greenland – and therefore introducing an unacceptable risk to the United States.
He later told Fox News that the acquisition of the territory was a “crucial issue for the security of the American people”.
Intelligence assessments shared with The Telegraph showed no step-change in the threat from Russia and China.
Moscow, indeed, had nosed around. Beijing for its part was most interested in economic exploitation of the region’s natural resources.
The plane takes off at dusk
Air Force One leaves Zurich with Donald Trump onboard after the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos on Thursday Credit: Michael Buholzer/Keystone via AP
Seeking to address Washington’s concerns, it was agreed that a small Nato team would travel to Greenland on a “recce” of the region, European sources said.
Britain sent its defence attaché in Copenhagen. Seven other nations deployed small numbers of troops.
Mr Whittaker was informed of the delegation’s purpose. But the news did not appear to reach Mr Trump.
On Sunday, he was enraged by footage on Fox News of C-17 transporter planes dropping European troops onto Greenland.
It looked to the US president – not unreasonably – like an attempt to form a bulwark against any forceful US takeover of the island.
In practice, it was a handful of soldiers huddled in a tent as they examined ways to bolster the island’s defences, The Telegraph was told.
Shortly before the delegation was set to leave, a storm broke out. Britain’s defence attaché had to delay his return to Denmark.
And Mr Trump had by then unleashed a diplomatic whirlwind of his own: in response to the deployment, he announced a 10 per cent tariff on the eight European nations, including Britain, that had taken part.
The European response split into two camps. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, called for banning American companies from the single market, the so-called trade “bazooka”.
Mr Rutte, Sir Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, meanwhile held frantic back-channel talks with Mr Trump and his administration, seeking to take advantage of comparatively friendly relations.
Mr Rutte smiles
Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, called Donald Trump ‘Daddy’ in a text message last year, something the US president recalled in his 75-minute address at Davos this week Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty
“We see that the writing is on the wall [in terms of ties with the Trump administration]. But we’re also aware that there is no reality where we can be independent from the US in the foreseeable future – especially on security,” one diplomat told The Telegraph.
In public, Sir Keir stood up in Downing Street on Monday to criticise Mr Trump’s plan for a hostile takeover.
In private, diplomats conveyed the message that the row was the product of a misunderstanding – and that neither side would benefit from a trade war which would leave them less able to invest in defence.
Greenlanders meanwhile began to prepare for the unthinkable. On Tuesday, the government warned citizens of the capital, Nuuk, to ready themselves for an invasion.
While it remained “not likely”, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the prime minister, recommended stockpiling five days’ worth of food.
Rumours – and they were purely rumours – began to ripple through the Arctic community about warships being spotted among the icebergs off the southern coast.
In fact, the handful of vessels seen on Tuesday were either fishing boats or Danish coast guard patrol vessels.
Outside the US consulate in Nuuk, one Greenlander, Jens Kjeldsen, 70, was mounting his own one-man protest against the threat of a US takeover.
“We do not want to be occupied or invaded by anyone,” Mr Kjeldsen told The Telegraph as he brandished his red-and-white Greenlandic flag.
The next day brought Mr Trump’s showpiece Davos address.
By the time he began to speak, the markets were flashing red. Wall Street’s benchmark S&P 500 had fallen 2.1 per cent, the US dollar was weakening, and gold had risen 2 per cent to a record high.

What is the Greenland deal and what does it mean?

1. A US 'sovereign base' in Greenland
One existing US military base would be designated a sovereign base area, modelled on Britain’s Cyprus bases, effectively giving Washington control and expanded freedoms to develop and use the site.
2. EU backing for Denmark and Greenland
Ursula von der Leyen said the EU would work “hand-in-hand” with Greenland and Denmark to support the local economy and infrastructure.
3. Expanded US military freedom
American forces would be able to strengthen air defences under the Golden Dome programme and conduct military operations, intelligence work and training without Danish approval.
4. Nato steps up Arctic security
European Nato allies would bolster Arctic security through enhanced intelligence sharing, naval and air patrols, and time-limited military exercises.
5. US investment in infrastructure
The deal opens the door to American investment in Greenland’s infrastructure, primarily to support troop deployments and logistics.
6. Preferential access to rare earths
US and European firms could gain preferential access to mining contracts, with Nato explicitly seeking to limit Chinese and Russian influence.
7. An open-ended agreement
The deal is expected to have no fixed time limit, allowing Mr Trump to drop his demands for outright ownership of Greenland.
8. Negotiations still to come
Mr Trump said the agreement would be finalised by a joint Danish-American working group.
Expand
According to the Wall Street Journal, outside allies of the president were expressing concern about the impact of his quest for Greenland on the world economy.
On several occasions throughout his presidency – from “liberation day” tariffs, to the recent refusal to strike Iran – Mr Trump has appeared to adjust his policies according to its winds.
In his speech, he quickly withdrew the most serious threat. While adamant that Greenland should become part of the US, Mr Trump said: “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
Instead, he laid out a meticulous case for the US to purchase the island outright. A lease agreement would not be enough, he said. (“Who the hell” would go to war to defend rented property?)
The US should be allowed to purchase the “big, beautiful piece of ice” as it was the only nation able to properly defend it, he added.
Moreover, Washington should never have returned the territory to Denmark after its forces stepped in to hold off the Nazis during the Second World War.
There were gasps, nervous laughter then a round of applause to finish.
The Daily T
00:00
31:43

The Daily T

Trump’s ‘disgusting’ diplomacy derails peace plan
Having spoken for 75 minutes – twice as long as his allotted slot – the US president headed out for a slew of diplomatic engagements, meeting Guy Parmelin, the Swiss president (“a beautiful country – you make extraordinary watches”) and other world leaders, before addressing a private reception of US corporate titans including the chief executives of Amazon and JP Morgan.
Then came the fateful meeting with Mr Rutte. After the deal was announced, European diplomats buzzed with emojis of tacos – a reference to the slogan: “Trump always chickens out.”
The details are set to be hammered out at the next meeting of the US-Denmark-Greenland working group.
It fell to Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, to deny that the markets had influenced the mercurial 45th and 47th president. “The bond market didn’t change the calculus,” he said. “President Trump always knew where he was going.”


Artwork titled ‘Trump’ by Greenlandic artist Kristian ‘Keto’ Christiansen, showing US President Donald Trump in traditional Greenlandic clothing and snow goggles, digging for minerals with a kayak paddle, displayed in a glass case in Nuuk, Greenland, March 30, 2025.Leon Neal/Getty Images

America’s New Age of Empire

Following the United States' illegal intervention in Venezuela, there is a palpable sense of uncertainty and foreboding, particularly among America's traditional allies. But it should already be obvious that things will not end well, either for the US or the rest of the world.

NEW YORK – US President Donald Trump has drawn a wave of criticism for his actions in Venezuela, violations of international law, disdain for longstanding norms, and threats against other countries – not least allies like Denmark and Canada. Around the world, there is a palpable sense of uncertainty and foreboding. But it should already be obvious that things will not end well, neither for the United States nor the rest of the world.

NEW YORK – US President Donald Trump has drawn a wave of criticism for his actions in Venezuela, violations of international law, disdain for longstanding norms, and threats against other countries – not least allies like Denmark and Canada. Around the world, there is a palpable sense of uncertainty and foreboding. But it should already be obvious that things will not end well, neither for the United States nor the rest of the world.


PS Commentators’ Predictions for 2026


PS Editors asked PS contributors to identify national and global trends to watch for in the coming year.


None of this comes as a surprise to many on the left. We still remember US President Dwight Eisenhower’s valedictory warning about the industrial-military complex that had emerged from World War II. It was inevitable that a country whose military spending matched that of the rest of the world combined would eventually use its arms to try to dominate others.


To be sure, military interventions became increasingly unpopular following the American misadventures in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. But Trump has never shown much concern for the will of the American people. Since he entered politics (and no doubt earlier), he has considered himself above the law, boasting that he could shoot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue without losing a vote. The January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol – whose anniversary we have just “celebrated” – showed that he was right. The 2024 election reinforced Trump’s hold on the Republican Party, ensuring that it will do nothing to hold him accountable.


The capture of Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro, was brazenly illegal and unconstitutional. As a military intervention, it required congressional notification, if not approval. And even if one stipulates that this was a case of “law enforcement,” international law still requires that such actions be pursued through extradition. One country cannot violate another’s sovereignty or snatch foreign nationals – let alone heads of state – from their home countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and others have been indicted for war crimes, but no one has proposed deploying soldiers to seize them wherever they happen to be.


Even more brazen are Trump’s subsequent remarks. He claims that his administration will “run” Venezuela and take its oil, implying that the country will not be permitted to sell to the highest bidder. Given these designs, it would appear that a new era of imperialism is upon us. Might makes right, and nothing else matters. Moral questions – such as whether killing dozens of alleged drug smugglers without any pretense of due process – and the rule of law have been shunted aside, with barely a whimper from Republicans who once proudly touted American “values.”


Many commentators have already addressed the implications for global peace and stability. If the US claims the Western Hemisphere as its sphere of influence (the “Donroe Doctrine”) and bars China from accessing Venezuelan oil, why shouldn’t China claim East Asia and bar the US from accessing Taiwanese chips? Doing so would not require it to “run” Taiwan, only to control its policies, particularly those allowing exports to the US.


It is worth remembering that the great imperial power of the 19th century, the United Kingdom, did not fare well in the 20th. If most other countries cooperate in the face of this new American imperialism – as they should – the long-term prospects for the US could be even worse. After all, the UK at least tried to export salutary governing principles to its colonies, introducing some modicum of the rule of law and other “good” institutions.


By contrast, Trumpian imperialism, lacking any coherent ideology, is openly unprincipled – an expression solely of greed and the will to power. It will attract the most avaricious and mendacious reprobates that American society can churn up. Such characters do not create wealth. They direct their energy to rent-seeking: plundering others through the exercise of market power, deception, or outright exploitation. Countries dominated by rent-seekers may produce a few wealthy individuals, but they do not end up prosperous.


Prosperity requires the rule of law. Without it, there is ever-present uncertainty. Will the government seize my assets? Will officials demand a bribe to overlook some minor peccadillo? Will the economy be a level playing field, or will those in power always give the upper hand to their cronies?


Lord Acton famously observed that, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But Trump has shown that one does not need absolute power to engage in unprecedented corruption. Once the system of checks and balances starts to fall apart – as indeed it has in the US – the powerful can operate with impunity. The costs will be borne by the rest of society, because corruption is always bad for the economy.


One hopes that we have reached “peak Trump,” that this dystopian era of kakistocracy will end with the 2026 and 2028 elections. But Europe, China, and the rest of the world cannot rely on hope alone. They should be devising contingency plans which recognize that the world does not need the US.


What does America offer that the world cannot do without? It is possible to imagine a world without the Silicon Valley giants, because the basic technologies they offer are now widely available. Others would rush in, and they may well establish much stronger safeguards. It is also possible to imagine a world without US universities and scientific leadership, because Trump has already done his utmost to ensure that these institutions struggle to remain among the world’s best. And it is possible to imagine a world where others no longer depend on the US market. Trade brings benefits, but less so if an imperial power seeks to grab a disproportionate share for itself. Filling the “demand gap” posed by the US's persistent trade deficits will be a lot easier for the rest of the world than the challenge facing the US of dealing with the supply side.


A hegemon that abuses its power and bullies others must be left in its own corner. Resisting this new imperialism is essential for everyone else’s peace and prosperity. While the rest of the world should hope for the best, it must plan for the worst; and in planning for the worst, there may be no alternative to economic and social ostracism – no recourse but a policy of containment.


[May additionally look up:
I/II. 'Venezuela: An Act of Incredible International Banditry!' at <https://groups.google.com/g/greenyouth/c/NhV1oK9suds>.
II. 'Canadian PM's Speech at Davos: More than a straw in the wind' at <https://groups.google.com/g/greenyouth/c/1Gmg_ByigVk>.]


Peace Is Doable


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages