By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Denmark’s Foreign Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, responded positively to comments made by former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Greenland. Trump, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, stated he would not use force to acquire the Danish territory. Despite this reassurance, Trump reiterated his desire to make Greenland part of the United States.
Read the original article here
Trump says the US won’t use force to seize Greenland, and his pronouncements are, well, let’s just say a bit all over the place. The whole Greenland thing, or was it Iceland? It’s hard to tell, even for him apparently. The confusion between the two, the subtle threats masked as negotiations, and the rambling about force – it’s a lot to unpack. The initial reports suggested he wouldn’t use force, but then came the carefully worded, almost contradictory statements. He’d say something about not needing to, if “you just do what I say”, which, frankly, sounds a lot like a threat disguised as a promise. He also said that “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that.” It’s hard to reconcile those statements and the public at large would be right to be skeptical.
Then there’s the whole Europe situation. He seems to think it’s “destroying” itself, which is a fairly broad and frankly, an inflammatory statement. He didn’t say precisely *how*, just that it was. One gets the sense that he views Europe with a mix of disdain and a weird kind of jealousy. He seems to be saying, implicitly, that what he’s doing is making America “great”. And maybe because of those “actions”, he is now seeing some unwanted consequences. There is certainly a subtext of blame. What’s even stranger is the constant referencing of Iceland and Greenland, the mixing of the two seems symptomatic.
The speech itself, according to the accounts, was a rambling affair. He seemingly struggles to string together a coherent thought, jumping from subject to subject with little apparent connection. This, of course, isn’t new. He goes on to accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The whole performance is reminiscent of someone trying desperately to sound important, to exert authority, but failing miserably. The idea that he’s a “master negotiator” or a strategic thinker is becoming increasingly difficult to swallow. And again, this comes from someone who was voted in office not once but twice.
The most disturbing part, perhaps, is the casual way he throws around threats. “You can say yes and we will be very appreciative or you can say no and we will remember,” sounds like a line from a mob boss, not a world leader. It really drives home the idea that he might actually consider using force. It’s almost worse than if he had just said he *would* use force, because he’s leaving it hanging there, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear. The fact that the administration hasn’t corrected him on this just adds to the tension.
So, is America being embarrassed on the world stage? The answer seems to be a resounding yes. The constant gaffes, the incoherent speeches, the bizarre fixation on Greenland (or Iceland, or both), and the veiled threats all paint a picture of someone who is not fit to lead. The fact that he’s still able to garner support from so many people is both baffling and worrying.
The fact that the media, in their attempts to sanitize his remarks, may have over corrected his own words is a problem on its own. They shouldn’t try to make him sound intelligent, because he’s not. The man’s words should be quoted word for word, not summarized. This is the man who seemingly wants to buy an entire island and yet is confused about its name. And finally, if he said he wouldn’t use force, then he did a pretty lousy job of convincing anyone.