I do not harbor a personal dislike for Donald Trump. In fact, I believe many of the actions he took to clean up the US were long overdue. As individuals age, they often become set in their ways, and the same can be said for companies and nations. This tendency to become rigid stems from a desire for security, guided by the doctrine that what worked in the past should continue to work in the future. This is how the limbic brain operates, aiming to create a predictable and supposedly secure world.
However, the United States had reached a point where this rigidity was on the verge of causing significant damage. The old patterns and systems could no longer be applied to address the rapidly evolving challenges of the future. As is often the case with such entities, there is a growing tendency to lean towards more authoritarian measures in an attempt to maintain a false sense of security. This results in nations becoming more police state-like, where legal systems are undermined by overcontrol and corruption. The original values are compromised and changed to stupid low class values like promoting a variety of sexes. Overemphasis on progressive social issues, such as gender identity, racial equity, and climate change, has overshadowed more immediate concerns like inflation and economic recovery. The administration’s support for these progressive policies is seen by some as too far-reaching and disconnected from the struggles of everyday Americans. Equality transmorphs from: “We are all equal” to “We are all equal but some are more equal than others”.
A clean-up and transformative structural change were unquestionably necessary. However, in the case of the Greenland issue, I do not believe Trump handled it well. In fact, his approach was a disaster.
Donald Trump’s approach to international diplomacy often resembles a wrecking ball smashing through a china shop—loud, crude, and utterly oblivious to nuance. His attempt to “buy” Greenland was no exception. In what might be one of the most embarrassingly ignorant foreign policy blunders in recent history, Trump publicly asked Denmark if they would be willing to sell Greenland, seemingly unaware that Denmark does not, in fact, own Greenland. It was the geopolitical equivalent of offering to buy a neighbor’s house while ignoring the fact that the neighbor rents it.
But this is Donald’s MO and has often worked.
As usual, Trump’s opening gambit was to ridicule and insult. Denmark was doing a “poor job” with Greenland, he claimed—because nothing says “let’s make a deal” like trash-talking your potential partner. He followed this up with a tantrum, canceling a planned state visit to Denmark when they had the audacity to say “no.” The world collectively rolled its eyes, and Greenlanders took note: the U.S. was not approaching them as an equal but as a prize to be won.
Of course, the humiliation didn’t end there. Trump, never one to let a bad idea die, later sent his son on a laughable PR tour to Greenland to “strengthen ties” (read: meddle in their election). The stunt was met with widespread mockery in European media, reinforcing the idea that the U.S. saw Greenland not as a sovereign territory but as a strategic asset ripe for the taking.
And what was all this about? Not military strategy—Greenland’s Cold War significance had long since faded. No, what Trump really wanted was something far more valuable: lithium. With China dominating the global battery market, securing Greenland’s mineral wealth could have been a game-changer for the U.S. But, true to form, Trump’s crude and clueless approach ensured that Greenland would have no interest in dealing with him—or the U.S.—on such terms.
This is the story of how Trump turned a potential strategic partnership into a diplomatic dumpster fire, alienating Greenland, Denmark, and much of the international community in the process.
USA’s Modus Operandi: How They Take Control Over Other Countries
For decades, the United States has used a variety of strategies to ensure control over other nations—whether militarily, economically, or through political influence. This article outlines the different methods the U.S. employs, both openly and covertly, to dominate a country, whether it’s in the Middle East, Latin America, or even Greenland.
- Economic Influence: Debt as a Weapon
One of the primary methods the U.S. uses to gain control over a country is economic dependency. This is often achieved through loans from institutions such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), where a country is forced to implement political and economic reforms that typically benefit American interests.
- Example: Several Latin American countries have been trapped in debt cycles, forcing them to privatize resources and open their markets to American corporations.
- Greenland: By offering investments in infrastructure, research, and business development, the U.S. can slowly build economic control.
- Political Manipulation and Regime Change
The U.S. has repeatedly used diplomatic and covert operations to ensure that a friendly regime governs a country. This is often achieved through financing opposition groups, propaganda, and even coups.
- CIA Operations: The U.S. has supported coups in countries such as Iran (1953), Chile (1973), and Venezuela (attempted in 2002).
- Election Interference: The U.S. has repeatedly influenced elections in other countries by financing certain parties or manipulating media narratives.
- Greenland: If the U.S. seeks greater influence, it may support politicians who advocate closer cooperation with Washington and possibly even independence from Denmark.
- Military Interventions and Base Strategy
When economic and political manipulation isn’t enough, the U.S. has often resorted to military means. They have a long history of invasions and regime-change operations that secure American strategic interests.
- Military Presence: The U.S. has military bases in over 80 countries and uses them to exert pressure. The Thule Air Base in Greenland is a crucial part of their geopolitical strategy.
- Invasions: Iraq (2003), Afghanistan (2001), and Panama (1989) are examples of how the U.S. uses warfare to install friendly governments.
- “Humanitarian” Missions: The U.S. has used UN mandates and NATO to legitimize military operations in Yugoslavia (1999) and Libya (2011).
- Media and Cultural Influence
Cultural dominance plays a significant role in the U.S.’s strategy for achieving control. Hollywood, American tech giants, and social media are powerful tools for promoting American values and interests.
- Hollywood & Soft Power: Movies and TV shows often depict the U.S. as the “world’s protector,” legitimizing American interventionism.
- Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, and Google can be used to shape narratives and promote pro-American viewpoints.
- Greenland: American culture and media can foster a mindset where Greenlandic citizens see the U.S. as a more attractive partner than Denmark.
- Intelligence Services and Espionage
The CIA, NSA, and other American intelligence agencies play a crucial role in gathering information about leaders, military strategies, and economic weaknesses in potential target countries.
- Surveillance: The NSA’s global surveillance, revealed by Edward Snowden, shows how the U.S. spies on both allies and enemies.
- Infiltration: The CIA infiltrates local institutions, businesses, and political parties to advance American interests.
- Greenland: With the Thule Base and a potential expansion of American presence, the U.S. can easily monitor Greenland and secure control over the Arctic.
Here is the list of all the countries the USA has invaded or militarily intervened in since World War II, translated into English:
List of Countries the USA Has Invaded or Intervened in Militarily Since WWII
- China (1945–1949) – U.S. involvement in the Chinese Civil War
- Korea (1950–1953) – Korean War
- Iran (1953) – CIA-backed coup (Operation Ajax)
- Guatemala (1954) – CIA-backed coup (Operation PBSUCCESS)
- Lebanon (1958) – U.S. military intervention
- Cuba (1961) – Bay of Pigs invasion
- Vietnam (1955–1975) – Vietnam War
- Laos (1959–1975) – Secret war and bombings
- Cambodia (1969–1973) – Secret bombings and invasion
- Dominican Republic (1965) – Military intervention
- Chile (1973) – CIA-backed coup against President Allende
- Grenada (1983) – U.S. invasion (Operation Urgent Fury)
- Nicaragua (1980s) – Contra war backed by the U.S.
- Lebanon (1982–1984) – U.S. military intervention
- Panama (1989) – U.S. invasion (Operation Just Cause)
- Iraq (1991) – Gulf War
- Somalia (1992–1994) – U.S. military intervention (Operation Restore Hope)
- Haiti (1994, 2004) – U.S. military intervention
- Yugoslavia (1999) – U.S.-led NATO bombing of Serbia and Kosovo
- Afghanistan (2001–2021) – War in Afghanistan
- Iraq (2003–2011) – U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
- Libya (2011) – U.S. and NATO intervention
- Syria (2014–present) – U.S. military operations and airstrikes
- Yemen (2015–present) – U.S. drone strikes and military support
- Pakistan (2004–present) – U.S. drone strikes and covert operations
- Is Greenland next?
Trump’s Negotiation Tactic: Attack, Shake, Then Make a Deal
If you’ve read Donald’s book “The Art Of The Deal”, you have an idea how he prepares for a deal.
- Initial Attack – Ridicule & Dominance Play
- Trump often starts negotiations with personal insults, mockery, or public criticism of his opponent.
- Goal: Shake the opponent’s confidence, undermine their credibility, and establish dominance.
- Example: Calling Kim Jong-un “Little Rocket Man” or claiming Denmark did a “poor job” managing Greenland.
- Sustained Pressure – Keep the Opponent on the Defensive
- He repeats the insults over time, making them a talking point in the media.
- This forces the opponent into a defensive position, reacting instead of leading.
- Example: Months of attacks on China’s trade policies before finally negotiating.
- Play it Cool – Act Like Nothing Happened
- Once the opponent shows signs of wanting to engage, Trump ignores past insults and suddenly acts friendly.
- This puts the opponent in the weaker position, as they now seem desperate for negotiations.
- Example: After months of trashing North Korea, Trump met with Kim and suddenly praised him.
- Make the Opponent Come to You
- Trump prefers waiting for the opponent to initiate contact so he appears in control.
- If they don’t, he may send indirect signals through media or intermediaries.
- Example: After insulting Mexico over NAFTA, he later welcomed trade talks “on his terms.”
- Sudden Friendship – The “Bros” Moment
- Once talks start, he acts like an old friend, showering the opponent with praise.
- This contrast creates psychological relief for the opponent, making them more open to concessions.
- Example: From “Little Rocket Man” to “We fell in love” about Kim Jong-un.
- Close the Deal – But Keep Leverage
- Even after making a deal, Trump never lets the opponent feel completely secure.
- He may make public statements questioning the agreement or hinting at new demands.
- Example: After negotiating with China, he continued to threaten tariffs.
Why This Works (and When It Backfires)
- Psychological Warfare: This keeps the opponent emotionally unstable, making them more reactive.
- Media Manipulation: Constant coverage of the insults ensures Trump controls the narrative.
- Power Positioning: If the opponent engages, it looks like they are conceding.
- Backfire Risk: Works on some leaders but can create diplomatic backlash (e.g., Denmark’s reaction to the Greenland insult).
How to Counter Trump’s Negotiation Tactic
- Stay Unshaken: Don’t react emotionally to insults.
- Control the Narrative: Redirect focus to the actual deal, not his antics.
- Flip the Script: Publicly call out the tactic without engaging in personal attacks.
- Make Him Wait: Delay negotiations to remove his psychological leverage.
How Donald Screwed Up the Greenland Deal
Trump’s usual divide-and-conquer strategy backfired the moment he first asked Denmark in the media if they wanted to sell Greenland—which only revealed that he hadn’t done his homework. Denmark does NOT own Greenland and therefore can’t sell it. Trump made a colossal mistake, displaying his ignorance about Greenland’s ownership status.
By trash-talking, as he usually starts out, he only managed to portray himself as a bully, and pretty much the entire world OUTSIDE the U.S. agreed that his approach was primitive and showed an utter lack of respect. Greenlanders noticed this! And they quickly figured out that they might be pawns in an international game.
During Trump’s second term as president, there was an election in Greenland for the prime minister position. In a desperate attempt to influence the outcome, Trump sent his son on a PR tour to interfere with the election. This pathetic marketing stunt was ridiculed in European media as—well—a pathetic marketing stunt.
The result of the election didn’t change anything in favor of the U.S. Greenland has one overarching goal: They want to be independent. From the U.S. as well as Denmark. But for now, they rely heavily on Danish support, and it will take time before they can establish full independence. They do not want to become a U.S. state but are happy to do business with everyone.
What Donald Really Wants (Lithium)
Thule Air Base: From Cold War Relic to Modern Resource Hub
Thule Air Base, established in 1951, was originally a strategic outpost during the Cold War. At its peak, it housed over 10,000 personnel, including U.S. Air Force and Danish workers, serving as a key radar station for detecting Soviet missile launches. Over the years, as missile technology advanced and Cold War tensions faded, Thule’s strategic value diminished, and the personnel count was reduced to around 600 today.
Initially, Greenland had immense strategic importance because U.S. missiles could reach the USSR from Thule, but Soviet missiles could not reach the U.S. directly—they could only bomb Greenland. However, with the development of long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), both nations can now strike each other without relying on Thule Base. Greenland’s strategic position has largely become obsolete as a military asset.
The Global Lithium Race
China is the world leader in battery production, particularly for lithium-ion batteries, which power everything from electric vehicles (EVs) to consumer electronics and energy storage systems. The U.S. desperately wants to compete, and Greenland holds the key.
- Global Battery Market: China controls over 75% of the world’s lithium-ion battery production capacity.
- Raw Material Supply: China refines over 60% of the world’s lithium and dominates cobalt and nickel processing.
- Geopolitical Competition: The U.S. and Europe are now scrambling to secure lithium sources to reduce reliance on China.
Lithium in Greenland
- Known Lithium Deposits: Several lithium-rich areas exist in southern Greenland, including the Ilímaussaq Complex and Kvanefjeld.
- Mining Potential: Despite environmental and political challenges, Greenland is a critical future supplier of lithium for Western markets.
- Chinese Involvement: China has invested in Greenland’s mining sector, making it a geopolitical flashpoint.
Conclusion: Trump’s Real Agenda
Trump wants Greenland not because of its people, culture, or even its military potential. He wants it for lithium (and other critical minerals). If the U.S. could secure Greenland’s vast lithium resources, it could become the largest producer of batteries, allowing America to challenge China’s dominance. This is the REAL reason why Trump wanted Greenland. And he blew it.
Show your support for an independent Greenland – Click here.
Rating of this article: [rating stars=”5.0″]