Donald Trump says he wants to grab Greenland, annex Canada—and leave Europe at Russia’s mercy. This is way more than tough talk. Trump wants to remake the world in his image—ruled by powerful bullies who take what they want—simply because they can. In part one, we explain how and why Trump is tearing apart the world. In part two, we look at the world he wants to build—and where India fits into it.
A very territorial Trump
As many have observed, Donald Trump has a very old-fashioned approach to imperialism. He wants to invade and grab land, Soviet Union style. Whether it is Gaza or Greenland, he should be able to take whatever he wants “under US authority”—no need for inconsequential figleaves like UN or NATO backing.
A 19th-century man: Many see this ‘might is right’ attitude as alien to America—which positioned itself as the ‘leader of the free world’ for most of the 20th century. However, Trump’s approach is very much rooted in American history. It dates back to 1823 when President James Monroe decided that the entire Western Hemisphere (the Americas) was America’s backyard—and off-limits to all foreign powers. So-called American isolationism only meant that Washington pillaged South America at will—leaving the Europeans to fight among themselves.
The 21st-century Trump posse is newly enamoured by this idea—because it offers all the benefits of being a superpower—without the pesky costs of defending distant allies. What’s not to like about lording it over the richest part of the world—far from the madding crowd?
The basic idea behind this hemispheric tilt in American policy is that the US and its neighbours north and south are collectively bigger, richer, stronger and more self-contained than any possible challenger. Not only is the continent separated from the rest of the world by two massive oceans, the argument goes, but it is economically more closed, and less dependent on the rest of the world, than any rival region.
Quote to note: This worldview also synchs perfectly with Trump’s personality, as Fareed Zakaria points out:
Part of it is this old-fashioned view. But I do think, at the end of the day, there’s a strong element of narcissism that infuses everything that Trump does. He loves the idea that he would be able to put his stamp on history by saying: Trump added Greenland or something like that to the United States. The physical expansion of America would be a great legacy to Trump.
When ‘no’ means ‘yes’: Where the old America relied on soft power and hegemony, Trump believes in brute force:
[He] has a kind of fascination, I think, not just with America in the 19th century but also in the geopolitics of the 19th century, to the extent that I think he understands it, which is: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” — to quote Thucydides…
There is no better illustration of the Trump worldview than the way he’s dealt with the United States’ oldest and closest ally: Canada.
The Canada example: For months, he’s described it as the “51st state”—referred to its PM Trudeau as its “governor.” Last week, when Trudeau shockingly declared, “What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us”—most of us dismissed it as rhetoric.
Surely, Trump is just being his usual a***ole self, right? Wrong—as the latest New York Times reporting reveals. In early February, Trump told Trudeau “he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” In a later call, his Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed Trump was serious:
Mr. Trump, he said, had come to realize that the relationship between the United States and Canada was governed by a slew of agreements and treaties that were easy to abandon. Mr. Trump was interested in doing just that, Mr. Lutnick said.
These treaties include:
- The intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
- The Great Lakes agreements that lays out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario.
- And military cooperation outlined in the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
As for those tariffs: Turns out Trudeau was not exaggerating. When asked if he planned to use military force to annex Canada, Trump replied he would use “economic force.”
The Trump mantra: No friends, only vassals
If Trump is such a macho man, then why isn’t he taking on Vladimir Putin—or for that matter, Xi Jinping? The president instead spent his first month in the office declaring war on America’s friends—while cuddling up to its foes. Wtf is he thinking?
Beat down your buddies: According to Trump, our friends want us to wield our big stick to protect them—without giving us anything in return. Why not use it to beat them into submission instead? After all, our allies are far more vulnerable than our enemies:
We have more leverage with Canada than we have with Russia because Canada depends on us for security. Canada trades with us a lot. Its economy is intricately tied to the U.S. economy. So you can bully Canada. But you can’t really bully Russia that much because we don’t do much trade with them. You can’t bully China. It’s another vast continental economy that can survive just fine.
The tariffs show them who is boss—and who sets the terms in the relationship. And squeezes a bit more money out of them. Win, win, win!
No friends, only vassals: Since World War II, US power has rested on a core set of alliances—which Trump views as a scam to rip America off:
During his first term in office, President Trump described the European Union “as a foe,” established “to hurt the United States on trade.” He repeated the charge at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, but in more vulgar terms: “The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That’s the purpose of it, and they’ve done a good job of it.”
So why would the US owe them any loyalty or protection? The bigger truth: Trumpistas are not interested in making friends at all. There are no alliances—only “servile partners willing to accept a strictly transactional relationship.” If NATO won’t play ball or isn’t useful to Trump, well…
The bottomline: In part two, we look at the world that Trump wants to build—a world ruled by a small club of powerful nations—who respect each other's ‘spheres of influence’. But where will India fit in this new ‘multipolar’ order? Are we the global Chanakya who can cleverly juggle Moscow, Beijing and Washington? Or do we need new friends in a hurry?
Reading list
If you can only read/listen to one thing, we highly recommend this conversation between Ezra Klein and Fareed Zakaria. For more opinionated takes on the Trump worldview, read David Frum in The Atlantic and Adam Garfinkle in Quillette. The Diplomat has more on what’s next for the Asian allies. The Nation argues that the fall of US hegemony may be a good thing.
