By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has announced a framework for a deal regarding Greenland, a Danish island he previously considered acquiring. The deal would allow the U.S. to build missile defense bases and mine for minerals on the island. Trump also took the military option off the table for Greenland, a key strategic location. Despite the potential deal, European and Canadian allies have expressed concerns about the damage already done to the U.S.’s relationships.
Read the original article here
Trump backpedals on threats against Greenland, but allies say damage has been done | PBS News
It seems the whole Greenland saga, as you might expect, has left a particularly bitter taste in the mouths of many. When you look back at how this unfolded, it’s clear that Trump’s initial bluster, including suggestions of outright military action and threats about tariffs, created a real crisis of confidence, even before he backed down. This whole episode is a testament to the unpredictable nature of his approach to international relations, and it’s something that is resonating deeply, particularly with allies like Denmark.
The core of the problem, as many see it, is the profound damage to trust. The idea that a nation like the United States would even entertain the thought of acquiring Greenland, or use threats as leverage, is frankly seen as insulting. It’s hard to rebuild that trust, especially when it feels like the current US administration doesn’t even seem to understand the implications of their actions. There’s a feeling that apologies, or even attempts to distance oneself from the fallout, simply aren’t enough. The damage, as some see it, is already baked in.
Denmark, in particular, comes across as having been deeply offended by the whole thing. The sense is that their sovereignty was disrespected and that the whole episode was handled with a complete lack of regard for the existing international order. There is a strong feeling that the checks and balances within the US system failed to prevent this situation from escalating, and that raises serious questions about the reliability of the United States as a global partner.
One of the more alarming things is the underlying sense that this isn’t just about one individual. It’s perceived as a symptom of a much deeper problem within American politics and society. The willingness of certain factions to embrace the rhetoric and actions of this administration, even when those actions clearly undermine international stability, is a source of real concern. The suggestion that “the U.S. as the stable backbone of the global order is officially done” isn’t just an isolated opinion; it reflects a broader sense of unease.
The fact that the initial threats were quickly walked back, the backpedaling on sovereignty and the tariff, and the apparent eagerness to negotiate a new deal, doesn’t seem to have reassured anyone. The general sentiment is that the damage has been done. The fact that Trump’s motives, such as they are, appear to be driven by financial gain or some other form of political calculation, and his focus on the stock market over international cooperation, only amplifies the distrust.
The concerns about potential future actions are also key. There’s a widespread worry that this kind of behavior isn’t going away, and that it represents a broader shift in American foreign policy. The question of whether allies can trust the US government in the future is being asked, and the answer, for many, seems to be a resounding no. This makes it challenging to move forward on other matters, such as trade deals and military alliances.
The debate also raises questions about the future of NATO and the US’s relationship with its allies in general. Some have pointed to the hypocrisy of the US criticizing other nations while simultaneously exhibiting similar behaviors. There is a sense that the US, through its actions, is actively undermining the very alliances it claims to value. The idea of the US continuing to hold bases in other countries and then weaponizing that position for their own gain is also a source of tension.
Beyond the immediate crisis, there is a broader consideration of America’s role in the world. The sentiment that the US should focus on its own hemisphere, and scale back its military presence, is increasingly common. There’s a feeling that other nations, particularly in Europe, should be capable of handling their own security concerns.
The reactions coming out of Europe specifically show a level of anger, frustration, and disbelief that seems to be shared across many quarters. There is a strong feeling that the US needs to reassess its place in the world and that the old assumptions about American leadership no longer hold true. The phrase, “America cannot be trusted,” sums up this shared feeling.