Tapper, on 10 January 2025 - 07:06 AM, said:
Not if you go into the specifics of replacing one administrative system with another.
Trump probably only cares about the wealth that can be generated by extracting resources and controlling trade routes. He'd outsource most of the administration of that to private industry, aided by the military. Company mining towns and shipping ports. The native populations can fend for themselves, or be displaced. Greenland has a population of only about 56,000---more than enough for the US private prison industry to profitably enslave (as they have inmates in the 16 US states where it's still legal even for US citizens). Or maybe he'd let far-right Christian groups in to do their "work" (instead of providing governemnt services, etc. for the native population). Or Trump could follow the example of his avowed favorite president and---particularly if the natives try to fight back---commit genocide (after indiscriminately labeling them as "terrorists") or force the native population onto reservations (Trail of Tears). Granted, Canada does have a few more people, and Trump might actually like to tax them---or have the military exact tribute.
Quote
Trump will be president for 4 years. After that, even if somehow he manages to get another term (biiiiiiiiig assumption), he will still be ruled by short term interests, because his lifespan will be short. Occupation is never short term.
He still cares about money and "tough guy" status. Trump would get immediate pay-outs from the corporations who stand to benefit from the long-term plunder of Greenland---or Canada. And he'd elevate his "tough guy" strongman cred. Putin and Xi would love it, and pay him even more than they already have been.
Quote
Putin is tethered to China. Even if he would pivot to a Trump-led US, he knows any Trump successor (especially an elected one) will turn against him. Trump wants Putin's personal approval, maybe. He certainly envies his autocratic position and image as sole ruler - but more than Putin's approval, Trump wants to look strong and in charge.
Trump will use the threat of China as as an excuse to build up the US military. But he fundamentally doesn't care about Taiwan. He would rather ally with Xi than with democracies. There's more in it for him. If he hasn't already, he's probably going to make a secret agreement with Xi to allow China to (try to) take Taiwan once viable alternative semiconductor supply chains have been set up---in exchange for a bribe.
Trump does see China as an economic competitor and potential competitor for status and power. But
Xi cares enough about "reunification" with Taiwan---and takes enough of a long-view---to be willing to temporarily take actions which would at least seem (to Trump at least) to give the US more of a military and economic advantage over the rest of Trump's probable lifespan. Xi tends to take the multi-decade view, playing the long game.
Quote
Trump's rhetoric toward China and its autocratic leader, Xi Jinping, is far more complimentary than it was at the beginning of his first term. Trump has even suggested he could back away from Taiwan, which Xi [...] wants to reclaim — which he possibly could if the United States steps aside. [...] Trump is staffing his administration with China hawks, and his bite could turn out to be worse than his bark. But Trump could also use those hardliners as bad cops threatening punitive policies as a setup for Trump the good cop offering deliverance.
[...] In 2023, Trump called the Chinese autocrat a "brilliant man" with Hollywood good looks. He repeated the praise last fall, adding how impressed he is that Xi "controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist." Trump even invited Xi to his Jan. 20 inauguration.
[...] Xi wants to "reunify" and has ordered China's military to be ready to do it by force by 2027. Trump hasn't said he'd allow that, but he's put more distance between the United States and Taiwan than any other modern president.'
https://finance.yaho...-110039907.html
The hawks may squawk, but Trump is Big Bird.
The world's democracies would be extremely hard pressed to respond to simultaneous invasions of Greenland by the US, Taiwan by China, and Russian attacks on Europe alongside a renewed invasion of Ukraine or other adjacent nations. Simultaneous economic sanctions on the United States and China would risk devastating European economies. But the "ideal" scenario for the authoritarian axis would be if they could sabotage the nuclear capabilities of France and the UK---Putin almost certainly has had Russian agents hard at work at that for a long time, but Trump may add US spy agencies (if he can find enough sufficiently loyal and competent people---perhaps Russia will offer to help train them?).
Tapper, on 10 January 2025 - 07:06 AM, said:
The US has used plenty of iffy justifications in the past 80 years to intervene in foreign countries, but it hasn't started a war of aggression with the outright aim of conquest… "only" regime change
The US has used "national security" as a pretext for wars of resource extraction and occupation---consider how the Vice President's former company, Halliburton, plundered Iraqi oil in the wake of the war. Of course Trump will (publicly) frame it as an issue of "national security".
Help
