Trump, Greenland, and the Dangerous Return to Imperial Thinking

[Jannes]

5 hours ago, voxun said:

 

 

 

Hell yeah!! Thanks for sharing. 

[zazen]

On 17/01/2026 at 11:34 PM, zazen said:

Imperialism wants total control - especially over possible riches and leverage via trade corridors and choke points.

Not only wants but requires - control of platform is more essential than the product traded upon that platform - especially in a financialized empire where the exorbitant privilege is afforded to the reserve currency. The OS (system) is more important than what any single app is trending on a given day.

New trade corridors emerging that bypass US controlled geography and institutions is a threat to the system - not so much to national security (although potential remains) but to an financialized empires platform.

Eurasian Silk Road and Arctic pass are outside of US control - meaning no possibility of leverage by choking off adversaries. It also means if trade wanted to be conducted outside the dollar system the US wouldn’t be able to interdict that trade the way it would by sea. Meaning sanctions and SWIFT lose their veto power in controlling nations to fall into line with the empire interests.

If your a Atlanticist empire what’s the best way to prevent Eurasian integration between the two largest markets in the world (China and Europe)? 

In geopolitics leverage is constantly being negotiated, maintained or denied to rivals - or in this case allies. Artic trade route opening up gives Europe optionality and leverage it didn’t have before. US wants total control over this to deny that leverage to what it views as subordinate junior partners within the Atlanticist US empires orbit

Why do multiple countries have bases dotted along the Red Sea? Why is there an apparent rift between Saudi and UAE currently?

UAE was creating dependant non-state actors (an axis of secessionists) to gain access to local nodes (ports) along the Red Sea. Non-state actors are more easily controlled  and dealt with - especially by smaller states. The doctrine is divide and insure rather than divide and outright conquer. No one wants any one player to have veto power of a choke point. Saudi had to step in due to a red line being crossed South of its border in Yemen from UAE backed groups.

——————-

Trump doesn’t have to understand any of this in detail - he just wants his face on Rushmore. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some strategic (even if flawed and counter productive) logic that exists. The Arctic has been relevant for decades and only increasingly valuable now - that’s a reality.

There doesn’t need to be an imminent threat for a country to act and lock in a favourable geostrategic position before it’s too late. Iraq wasn’t a national security threat, yet the US waned a foothold and to dominate a valuable region of the world.

Only a critical mass of elite consensus needs to exist to allow the state machinery to move in a certain direction and not get in the way - as long as the overall direction is in line with the imperial objective to maintain primacy. People will comment and roll eyes but tacitly approve of the end objective.

In general there is usually a continuity of agenda, but a change in method and execution from president to president. This is why when Obama pivoted to China as a threat to start paying attention to - it was maintained through admins without much rollback.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by zazen