Filenews 15 January 2025 - by Marc Champion
Donald Trump has not ruled out resorting to violence to acquire Greenland from Denmark or the Panama Canal from Panama. Don't rule out the possibility that he means it.
The mere thought that America would blackmail or go to war with a close NATO ally to illegally change its sovereign borders seems ridiculous. In all likelihood, it is. However, the threats also sound somewhat familiar. As the president-elect and some members of his staff prepare for the White House, they increasingly resemble President Vladimir Putin's Russia in the way they speak and behave.
So what if that's how Trump intends to govern in his second and final term? He has repeatedly expressed admiration for Putin and is already trying to organize a bilateral summit. The Kremlin says it is willing.
Echoing the Kremlin's behaviour recently, Trump alluded to a possible annexation not only of Greenland and the Panama Canal, but also of Canada. He has also talked about renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America ("it's ours," he said — "nashi," as Russian nationalists say).
At the same time, Trump associate and member of the future administration, Elon Musk, has been more openly involved in trying to undermine – and, according to the Financial Times, topple – a foreign leader, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, more than any Russian "troll factory".
"Putinism" has at least three defining characteristics. The first is the deep contempt for democratic constraints, facts and social liberalism, in favour of personal oligarchy, manipulation and "anti-wokery". The result of this is a Russian political economy in which Putin distributes power, truth, and wealth as if it were his personal wealth. Loyalty is the number one skill for favour, with money and fear being a "double-sided tape" that holds the system together.
The second characteristic is a mafia-style mentality, in which all relationships are approached as matters of loyalty or ownership – whether within Russia or with other countries. "Friendship" and "trust" may be the words Putin uses to describe these ties, but they are always either transactional or coercive.
The final ingredient is the belief that after a brief deviation of 30-40 years, the world is returning to its natural Darwinian order. Here, the great powers dominate the areas around them as spheres of influence or, preferably, as possessions. Weaker neighbours are subjugated or punished. Great leaders, such as Putin's heroes, Peter and Catherine the Great, are making history by expanding their country's zone of control.
Trump and Putin are vastly different personalities with completely different backgrounds. The first is a noisy, unruly showman who comes from inherited wealth, the second, a street kid from Soviet-era Leningrad who trained in judo and made a career as a KGB agent. Nevertheless, their prospects converge on many points.
Trump flouts democratic constraints, so much so that in 2020 he tried to overturn the election result to stay in power. He focuses above all on the loyalty of his associates, best of all his close family environment, and is famous for his negotiations. Like Putin, he is a nationalist who sees liberal and multilateral institutions — whether in the U.S., Europe or elsewhere — as enemies.
But above all, Trump seems to share Putin's view that the U.S.-led international order that emerged from the Cold War is now dead. As a new one is built, it is up to each major power to assert itself in its "near abroad," to use the Russian term, as best it can. For Putin this means demanding and, if necessary, enforcing allegiance to countries such as Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. For Trump, that seems — for now — to translate into lobbying Canada, Greenland, Mexico and Panama.
There is no evidence of a grand conspiracy or collusion with the Kremlin here. Also a nationalist, it is just as likely that Trump will clash with Putin as he is that he will establish friendly relations with him. I can only guess how he could fulfil his promise to end the war in Ukraine (his timeline has just gone from 24 hours to six months) or how he would deal with Iran's nuclear program. Nor do I know how long Musk will remain in the orbit of the president-elect, or whether the world's richest "oligarch" even bothered to present his campaign against Starmer to his future boss.
But it is clear that Trump, like Putin, smells the weakness of whoever sits across from him at the negotiating table. And compared to the US, Canada, Europe and Panama are weak. Denmark could not defend Greenland from an American military takeover. Even if it had the troops and the necessary equipment, it lacks the ability to transport and support them. The U.S. has imposed itself on Panama before, and there's no doubt it could do it again.
I doubt that Trump today has the slightest intention of using the US military, knowing the economic damage it can inflict on allies to achieve his goal, without having to resort to force. This kind of coercion is also taken out of Putin's playbook. Perhaps the best lesson Trump could learn from the Kremlin is to take a long, close look at how all these trade and energy attacks on Russia's strongman unfolded. It's certainly not what he planned or hoped for at first.
