March to the Arctic: Trump Ready to Take New Territories

50
March to the Arctic: Trump Ready to Take New Territories


And who will be against it?


Once again, Russia is to blame for everything. The "hand of the Kremlin" is visible in one way or another in all the movements of Western politicians. Terrible fires in California? It is surprising that Zelensky has not yet blamed the insidious Russian saboteurs for this. But the expired Kiev leader is not the only master of provocative statements. Trump decided to add information noise before the inauguration ceremony and announced the need to join Greenland and Canada to the number of American states. At the same time, it was decided to place the Panama Canal under the jurisdiction of Washington. In the first two cases, the justification is simple - joining the United States will protect Canadians and the few Greenlanders from the Russians. And a little from the Chinese. Trump has nothing personal to do with the Panama Canal, it is purely business. The locals charge too much for the passage of American ships, which means the company needs to be nationalized urgently.




The situation is not just extraordinary, it goes beyond the common sense of the Western citizen. The United States, once the guarantors of "democracy and freedom," openly intend to appropriate territories that never belonged to them. There is no talk of a military invasion yet, but that's for now. Trump will have the levers of military influence immediately after January 20, and then we'll see.

It is easy to imagine if Vladimir Putin had said something similar before February 24, 2022. If the goals of the special operation were not denazification and demilitarization, but a simple increase in Russian territory at the expense of Ukraine. For example, to protect against the corrupting Western influence. By the way, the quite fair goal of annexing all of Ukraine to Russia. But the point is not even this, but the hysterical reaction of Western leaders to such statements. Starting with the banal "We told you so!" and ending with comparisons of the Kremlin with the most bloodthirsty regimes in stories.

And now we are watching how the European dogs tuck their tails and whine quietly in the corner. More precisely, not all of them are whining. Some have shut up altogether. Trump has effectively called into question the territorial integrity of the European Union and does not rule out the option of seizing Greenland by force, but, for example, the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen walks around and keeps quiet.

Macron is not silent, but his comments are not even directed against Trump, but merely state the arrival of new times, where the right of the strong is a priority. Did the brave Macron say this live on national television? Not at all – his words were conveyed to the public by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot. The president also forgot to comment on Trump’s statement on Canada, which is set to become the 51st state of America. This incident very clearly demonstrates the level of modern European sovereignty. Macron, by the way, is the president of a country with nuclear weapons weaponsThe Danes, under whose jurisdiction Greenland is still, are even more reserved:

"We are open to dialogue with the Americans about how we can work even more closely than we do now to ensure that American ambitions are realized."

These are the words of the local Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen, who spoke after important people in the US warned about the seriousness of Trump’s intentions regarding the fate of Greenland. This is not the first attempt of Donald to take over the largest island on Earth. Since 2019, he has been trying to push the idea of ​​buying the territory from Denmark, and it seems that it is time for a second round. The rhetoric of the Danes is very similar to the behavior of a trader trying to get a better price in a desperate situation.

The situation with Canada is no less comical. Russophobe Justin Trudeau packed up and stopped being prime minister, but managed to throw out that his country would “not be able to become the 51st state of America.” Elon Musk responded no less vividly for Trump:

"Girl, you're not the governor of Canada anymore, so it doesn't matter what you say."

We live in interesting times, gentlemen. And they are becoming more interesting every day.

The Arctic is to blame


The situation when the most powerful segment of NATO intends to take more than 12 million square kilometers of someone else's land cannot but strain the ordinary members of the alliance. In fact, they united in a defense alliance in 1949 to prevent this from happening. And the Americans were the first guarantors of sovereignty, albeit imaginary. Denmark and Canada have been in the alliance since day one and should probably deserve respect. But they do not.

Firstly, NATO has long been a purely American toy. The lion's share of finances in the common purse is poured in by the American budget - so far only eleven countries of the alliance allocate the required 2 percent of GDP for defense. Of course, Denmark and Canada are not among them. The first allocates no more than 1,7 percent, and the second even less - 1,4 percent. The Americans regularly allocate 3 percent and more.

A rhetorical question: does Trump have the right to demand compensation from defaulters for decades of overspending? To finish off the Europeans, the elected president of the United States hinted at increasing defense spending for alliance members to 5 percent. There is every reason to believe that Donald Trump intends to seriously shake up this rotten European nest. For our part, we can only wish the elected president good luck in this difficult but noble cause.


However, the question remains: why does Trump really need Canada and Greenland? If we put aside all the political tinsel. The reason for such zeal is simple: the Americans need the Arctic. They really need it. Firstly, it is now half in the hands of the Russians. And Washington cannot allow this. Global warming cannot be stopped, which means that all that remains is to accept it and enjoy its fruits. The first to ripen will be the untold riches on the ocean shelf. They will ripen immediately after the ice retreats to the north. We should not forget about the astronomical reserves of fresh water in the glaciers of Greenland. Humanity has long been accustomed to paying for clean water, and the price of this resource will only rise.

The second reason for such interest on the part of Trump is the formally very small share of the United States in the Arctic pie. The narrow cone from Alaska to the North Pole is not comparable to the possessions of the Danes and, especially, the Canadians. The time will come, billions will be pumped out here, but without America. Therefore, any attempts to buy Greenland at a “market” price are obviously false - the Danish pie is potentially worth several annual budgets of the United States. It is generally impossible to buy Canada, only to crush it with sanctions and force it to surrender to the mercy of the winner.

Trump intends to go down in history. This is an undeniable fact. After the high-profile assassination attempt with a shot-off earlobe, he clearly felt like a messiah. Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal are just some of the elements of the strategy of exalting the imperial ambitions of the new American elites. Trump's march to the Arctic is truly serious and is capable of changing a lot on the world stage. First of all, it will be another step towards the destruction of the Western world. Even if Donald's adventure does not work out, few can now rely on the strong shoulder of the American cowboy. Washington will sell out and betray for the sake of immediate benefit. But NATO's nest of vipers should still be stirred up.
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    10 January 2025 05: 04
    Before taking office, the president-elect can say whatever he wants. He is not held back by either internal opposition or external resistance. The Arctic will not melt overnight. And the US icebreaker fleet does not inspire confidence in its actions. You can't do much with just a submarine fleet. Casting a line does not necessarily mean a good catch. I think much will differ from Trump's predictions.
    1. +1
      10 January 2025 08: 48
      The US icebreaker fleet does not inspire confidence in its actions.

      it's even more fun... literally from yesterday:
    2. 2al
      0
      10 January 2025 12: 45
      Just as they buy enriched uranium, they also easily rent nuclear icebreakers from Rosatom.
    3. -1
      11 January 2025 13: 07
      besides the fact that they can't do anything all year round in the High Latitudes, not only in the marine component, but also on land, partly in the air and in space, as well as underwater and that's it. They have already lost the arms race for the High Latitudes. In addition, by 2030 in Yakutia they are planning to launch a small land-based nuclear power plant based on RITM200 reactors
  2. -1
    10 January 2025 05: 39
    The last outstanding US president, and perhaps the most outstanding, was Franklin Roosevelt, after him, unfortunately, the US did not shine with leaders. Trump is far from a stupid person, but he is more of a showman than a president, he will be remembered loudly, but as for everything else, there are still big questions, he already had a term, and in fact he did not do much, yes, he did it all very loudly, but the execution suffered...
    1. +1
      10 January 2025 07: 12
      Quote from turembo
      After him, unfortunately, the USA did not shine as a leader.

      Or maybe not "unfortunately", but fortunately for all? Otherwise it is hard to imagine what would await the World, eternal slavery in the shadow of dollar hegemony...
      1. 0
        10 January 2025 10: 47
        Yes, it lives somehow and for quite a long time.
      2. 0
        10 January 2025 20: 42
        And aren't we in the same situation? Perhaps it was America's lack of leaders that made possible its rise to the level we are witnessing? For decades, a system that lacked a strong leader capable of changing course led to a unidirectional policy, occasionally distracted by tactical issues, but without changing strategy. And without allowing itself to freeze in place. As a result, the US won the Cold War and achieved global hegemony.
        Alas (for the States, "alas", of course), this is what let them down. In the conditions of global hegemony, it was worth starting to change the line of behavior. It was necessary to make it so that: a) no one alone had a real way to resist the USA; b) the absolute majority liked to live under American hegemony. I can't imagine how exactly, but that's not the point. The main thing is that, apparently, on the whole, these tasks could not be solved.
        1. 0
          11 January 2025 13: 35
          However, your avatar exactly matches your thoughts. Bravo.
    2. 0
      10 January 2025 20: 50
      Reagan is a cowboy from westerns... This one will do what is written, as well as the next one.
    3. +1
      11 January 2025 09: 59
      After him, unfortunately, the USA did not shine as a leader.

      Our country, alas, has not shone with leaders since Stalin. And the collapse of the USSR began with the arrival of Khrushchev. Gorbachev only completed what this corn-grower started. sad
  3. -1
    10 January 2025 05: 46
    On October 1, 1979, almost 80 years after the purchase, the United States returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. They built it. The United States has more rights to the canal. Officially, construction of the 81,6 km long canal (65,2 km on land and 16,4 km along the bottom of Panama and Limon Bays) began on May 4, 1904 and was completed 10 years later, on August 15, 1914. According to the Canal de Panama website, the construction cost the United States $375 million.
    1. 0
      10 January 2025 10: 41
      Well, taking the Panama Canal militarily is not a problem; the problems will come later: there will be partisans, sabotage and other crap. But Europe will not budge. Canada and Denmark should surrender themselves.
    2. +1
      10 January 2025 13: 55
      We were also the first to develop Alaska!!! AND WHAT???
    3. 0
      11 January 2025 13: 43
      And how much did the Americans rob the population of Panama? And they are still robbing. You can compare it with the robbery of the EU now. I think even tens of times will be little. So,
      The cost of the channel has long since paid for itself.
  4. -1
    10 January 2025 05: 51
    Firstly, the Greenland aborigines will now greet the Americans in the same way that the Baltic aborigines greeted the Russians in 1940 - with flowers, songs and festive demonstrations. And it seems that the Canadian aborigines will too.
    Secondly, the situation for Russia is very strange now, since Russia has already flogged itself so much and repented for the mythical secret protocols of the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact", that when the US now annexes what the US needs, Russia will just look at it and lick its lips... like, yes, we had people at that time, not like the current tribe...
    1. +1
      10 January 2025 19: 29
      Greenland and Canada are two very different places.
      If the states have "strategic interests in protecting...", then nothing will help the Greenlanders. As well as Panama. By the way, as a Panamanian friend says - Panama will survive. They are generally accustomed to the Americans. Everything there works according to the American system - the Americans brought order in their time.
      With Canada - there is a problem both in Canada and in the States. The States should have 35 million liberal (even for Democrats) minded... Add a dozen states to their electoral system...
      But to subordinate it completely economically - so that the Canadian government does not prohibit the development of deposits along the green line and does not introduce crazy eco-taxes... That's true. The raw material base is nearby - but without unpredictability.
  5. +3
    10 January 2025 06: 16
    Trump throws information bombs, there is a lot of noise, it was the same during his first term
  6. +2
    10 January 2025 06: 16
    There is logic in the Gulf of America if the name America is considered as a geographical name of continents, and not as a state
  7. 0
    10 January 2025 06: 30
    ...ending with comparisons of the Kremlin with the most bloodthirsty regimes in history.

    For this comparison, you don’t have to do anything at all, and even if you hand out flowers to everyone with delicious cheesecakes, the characteristics won’t change.
  8. 0
    10 January 2025 06: 48
    They've been talking about Canada joining the US for a week now, but Britain has kept mum. Is it really okay with that?
    1. 0
      10 January 2025 07: 17
      And there is also a province called Quebec.
    2. 0
      10 January 2025 10: 45
      and Britain kept mum. Does it really agree?
      Don't be so harsh, not everyone knows that Canada is part of the British Commonwealth and the head of Canada is the British king. And the prime minister is just the head of government. Apparently, the world doesn't know much about this either. The occupation of Greenland is also impossible, a NATO member is entering into conflict with a NATO member. But Trump is a showman. Noise, glitter, nothing more.
      1. +2
        10 January 2025 12: 30
        So what? At one time Britain lost to the army of yesterday's farmers and hunters, while having a powerful fleet. The reason: logistics. And now, in addition, it has no will.
        1. +2
          10 January 2025 21: 40
          Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
          At one time, Britain lost to an army of yesterday's farmers and hunters, despite having a powerful fleet. The reason: logistics.

          Only then did the second Anglo-Boer War occur, and the Orange Free State and the Transvaal ceased to exist.
          1. +1
            Yesterday, 01: 34
            Compared. At the time of separation, the Americans numbered 2.5 million people against either 5 or 6 million Englishmen. While 350 thousand Boers tried to compete with 30 million Englishmen. Demographics decided
      2. +1
        10 January 2025 14: 27
        is the British king

        more precisely it would be: "the British crown"...
        1. +1
          10 January 2025 14: 28
          more precisely it would be: "the British crown".
          Doesn't change the essence...
        2. +1
          10 January 2025 18: 47
          According to Canadian law, this is the King of Canada.
      3. +1
        10 January 2025 18: 56
        The real power in Canada is in the hands of the government and the prime minister, who are politically responsible to the lower house of parliament. The same situation is in Great Britain. The term British Commonwealth has not been used for a long time. Now there is the Commonwealth of Nations, which includes republics. For example, the heads of India and Pakistan, which are members of the Commonwealth, are the Presidents of these countries. Although there, too, real power is in the hands of the prime ministers. Not all former colonies of Great Britain are members of the Commonwealth. On the other hand, Mozambique, which was a Portuguese colony, is a member.
    3. +1
      11 January 2025 01: 22
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      They've been talking about Canada joining the US for a week now, but Britain has kept mum. Is it really okay with that?

      Should the City of Londoners running this world start screaming? They are not clowns. They are above the fray. Everything is going according to THEIR plan.
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. +4
      10 January 2025 13: 24
      It is impossible to be strong militarily and at the same time be weak economically. Such a political factor as ideology is primary, the economy is secondary, the army is a superstructure and a consequence. In other words, the army depends on the economy, and the economy is determined by the political system of the state. Russia under capitalism is a much less powerful state entity than under the communist course. It is possible to apply different methods of building a capitalist state, different models within this system, but this path will be less effective in this territory than socialist transformations. It will probably be necessary to endure and degrade a lot more for society to understand this. This is not even a matter of choice, but only a question of the maturation of humanity, when it is ready. Until then, history will give new lessons so that man learns to see the cause-and-effect relationships of events.
      1. +2
        10 January 2025 14: 33
        Quote: Lumberjack
        It is impossible to be militarily strong and at the same time economically weak.

        Perhaps, not everything is so clear-cut, the Vikings, who lived by raids and robberies, in fact had only strong squads, but not a strong economy. The DPRK cannot compare with the USA in its economy, but the same Americans would prefer not to mess with its strong army.
        As for capitalism, I would like to say that it has become a planetary system that has its own leader and master, all the rest can only be colonies, in the direct or figurative sense. Europe, looking at the mouth of the USA, is an example of this, as are, in fact, the Russian oligarchs, the main agents of foreign influence in Russia, who are tied "body and soul" to the West.
        I agree with you on this point: only a revived pole of power, a socialist one, can allow Russia to have true independence and progress in development, even without the “galoshes” from China.
    2. 0
      11 January 2025 01: 35
      The Brits are great, aren't they? What a clear implementation of the joint plan with Israel to destroy Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, with Turkey and Israel - Syria, with Turkey - Great Turan, with the Persian monarchies - financial (at the initial stage) expansion into Central Asia, with France - Armenia's separation from the CSTO and from Russia. With the corrupt Russian state - the Islamization of Russia.
      And the geostrategist is fighting with the State Department and the White House... You never know, he might win and cover us with hazelnuts... The Brits have been trying to crush and destroy Russia for centuries and sooner or later they will do it... Unfortunately, there will be no more Stalins...
  10. -1
    10 January 2025 08: 22
    This Trump is somehow "swimming shallow". It's a different matter, for example, with Bush, who wanted all of Germany, or Biden, who set his sights on Ukraine.
  11. +4
    10 January 2025 08: 38
    Israel captured part of Syria, Turkey captured part of Syria. They can, although Syria never belonged to Turkey or, even more so, to Israel. But Russia is denationalizing something on the territory that was once part of Russia. But for some reason Russia cannot get back part of its country, even the author stated this. By the way, long ago the FRG captured the independent GDR and no one was outraged either. Why can't Russia get back what is its own?
    As for Trump's statements, we'll see. Although it looks like a mockery. Trump can want Canada, but the original Russian cities of Chernigov and Odessa cannot be in Russia?
    1. +2
      10 January 2025 08: 41
      although Syria never belonged to Turkey

      Syria did not belong to Turkey, but it belonged to the Ottoman Empire until 1924.
      1. +1
        10 January 2025 11: 50
        Quote: Konnick
        but it belonged to the Ottoman Empire

        The lands of which had previously belonged mostly to Byzantium. request
    2. -3
      10 January 2025 09: 24
      Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire.
      The strong dictate their terms. And Russia under Putin is by no means strong.
    3. +2
      10 January 2025 13: 39
      To join, you need economic and military power with great support from the population on both sides. And for this, you need to offer a significant improvement in the standard of living with a reserve, changes that will change people's lives so much that they will be ready for the difficulties and hardships that they will face in the process of integration. Of course, they will look at how people live in the state that they are supposed to join. If the improvements in life are insufficient, society will not accept such an idea. Simply put, you need to start with yourself and build a state that people will want to join.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. +1
    10 January 2025 09: 39
    The funniest thing is that none of this will happen. The show has begun and must continue, well, for at least four years.
  14. -2
    10 January 2025 10: 36
    Am I the only one who still finds the word "Russians" annoying?
    1. +2
      10 January 2025 19: 02
      How else to say it? Russians? But not only Russians live in Russia, and some Russians live outside of Russia and are not citizens of the Russian Federation. Citizens of Russia?
  15. Des
    0
    10 January 2025 11: 01
    From the author's (!) article: "Trump is going to make history. That's a fact. After the high-profile assassination attempt with his earlobe shot off, he clearly felt like a messiah."
    Well, he survived. And if not (joke), then what were the options in the USA? Question.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. 0
    10 January 2025 19: 51
    There is a suggestion - to wait a little... We will "get excited" after January 20... Trump is a good businessman and political "showman".... As they say: "To promise to marry is not to marry..." So far, all this is about Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal - uplifting words - desires that make Americans look to the future with pride and hope for the revival of the "great America"... But! So far, these are just words and nothing more... Naturally, there will be "surprises" for the US and the EU and Russia with China... Our task is to strengthen vigilance and strangle the "fifth column".... Now, behind the "smoke screen" of the American political "musical" "Trump 2.0", pressure on Russia is increasing, in all directions...
  18. 0
    10 January 2025 21: 27
    “We are Anglo-Saxons, and when an Anglo-Saxon needs something, he goes and takes it.”
    (Mark Twain "WE ARE THE ANGLO-SAXONS")
  19. +1
    10 January 2025 21: 59
    As they say, ..... - not to carry sacks. About six months - a year ago he said from the podium that he would call Vladimir, and everything would be over in 24 hours.
    This week he gave a more cautious and vague forecast - about 6 months.
    And since Trump will not be "zeroed out" (in the US it is not customary to rewrite the constitution every 5-10 years for every Vasya Pupkin), then in 4 years he will calmly return to his profitable business
  20. 0
    11 January 2025 16: 56
    Quote: Gardamir
    They can, although Syria has never belonged to Turkey.

    These territories were part of the Ottoman Empire for several centuries. Study a little history! Now, in essence, there is no sovereign state of Syria! All neighbors do whatever they want.
    And Syria's main ally, Russia, saved only Assad, either evacuates its troops or locks itself firmly in its bases. The mission has failed! hi
  21. 0
    Yesterday, 21: 22
    If Trump squeezes Greenland, Canada may not need to be squeezed. They will have almost 30% of the sector, both with access to the North Atlantic and with the current access to the northern part of the Pacific. Greenland is much more interesting in terms of minerals, logistics and military capabilities compared to Canada's Arctic islands.
  22. 0
    Today, 13: 24
    "Dedanization" will preserve the rights of the Eskimos to the Eskimo language.