america shows its imperialistic nature

---

 January 9th Commentary by Tony Aguilar

Despite its claims of spreading democracy, imperialism is not new to America. It just hides its true intentions from the American public. In some respects, the effort of America historically is reminiscent of Russia’s Empress, Catherine the Great who said, “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”

The present situation is different. In 1917, NATO didn’t exist. In 1917, the Danish viewed the islands as a liability and actually wanted to sell them. American military was a third rate power with armed forces of approximately 127,000 men. There is no threat of a foreign nation other than America posing a threat to the sovereignty of Greenland. It is hard to ascertain why Trump says that Chinese and Russia submarines are in the area when Nordic diplomats deny this. On top of this, the US has Pituffik Space Base, which is the first line of defense from an attack from the east namely Russia.

It would be rational to believe that if the US attempted to take Greenland by force it would be a fool’s errand to resist. History may however provide a different conclusion.

As one reads history, despite the assistance of France, the idea of 13 colonies being victorious in the American revolution would have been just as preposterous. The British at the time was the world’s premier military power and had expended what in today’s currency was the equivalent of 25 billion dollars in fighting the war.

History provides numerous examples of smaller less powerful nations gaining victory or inflicting great casualties on powerful nations. These include Japan against Russia, Finland inflicting massive casualties on the Soviet Union, Vietnam against France, the US and China, the Dutch Republic against the Spanish empire and even in antiquity, Athens against Persia.

This is not to suggest what would happen but to recognize that American hubris is not a guarantor of victory even with its overwhelming military power. While the US likes to talk about its Navy Seals, they too have had their share of failures and shortfalls including the 2011 Extortion 17 mission in which 22 SEALS were shot down in Afghanistan, Grenada, the 2005 Operation Red Wing where a full seal team was lost, the recent Red Sea mission as well as the 2019 mission in North Korea.

While the relationship between Denmark and the US has always been positive, including the Danes providing arms to the colonies during the American Revolution, this latest move by the Trump administration may lead to irreparable hostilities.

Perhaps the Trump administration is feeling exuberant about its relative ease in extracting the Venezuelan dictator. If intelligence expert Malcolm Nance is right however, Maduro most likely was handed over by his own military and the subsequent invasion was a smokescreen for a done deal.

To overlook Denmark’s resolve would be a huge mistake. Even now European nations, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands as well as Canada, are deploying troops to Greenland. While ostensibly it is conceivable that they are deploying, troops as a counter to what some consider strategic moves by Russia and China in the arctic, it would be naive to think that they are not also doing so to send a message to the American administration.

America can no longer be considered a reliable ally to Europe. It will create a great schism about the future of NATO quite possibly leading to the end of NATO as it is presently structured. There are times when use of the American military is warranted. This is not one of them.

How ironic would it be that the second time would be against the nation that most of the world rallied around.

Historically the acquisition of Greenland has been a topic of discussion since the 19th century. Past Secretaries of State William Seward and James Byrnes advocated the acquisition of Greenland. While it is geographically part of North America it is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.  The idea of using military force, however, is a new idea forged by the Trump administration. The 1951 Greenland agreement allows the US to build and maintain military bases. Danish leadership has been vocal about continuing to use Greenland as a military outpost. While the administration claims it is needed for national security, it is more likely because of its natural resources which includes gold, uranium and significant amounts of oil and gas.

The resurrection of a robust Monroe Doctrine, which was declared over by the Obama administration, was originally meant to dissuade Europe from interfering in the backyard of America, has now been expanded to include Europe itself. As a result, it has caused a lot of nations to rethink their defensive capabilities.

The United States military is the most powerful armed force in the world. Nonetheless, it is also true that it has rarely won a war without allies. It would be hard to imagine that nations would align themselves with the US if it attacked Mexico, Greenland or Canada.

The administration out of ignorance or callousness is oblivious to allies perceiving the United States as a threat to their democracy. Significant populations of nations including Mexico, Canada, Indonesia, South Africa, Kenya and Spain now consider the United States as a threat. While Canada is a non-nuclear state, it is now engaging in discussions about building nuclear weapons.

Nations which now share intelligence with America, whether through Five Eyes or other coalitions, will most likely become more judicious about the information they share.

From a geopolitical perspective, nations will seek stronger ties with nations such as China in addition to creating other regional alliances. French President Emmanuel Macron, who has long voiced a desire for a European Union becoming independent of the US, and Australin Prime Minster Anthony Albanese have both visited China. While their visits don't necessarily signal a change of alignment, it does give rise to the idea that nations will seek options as the United States is becoming more belligerent and less reliable.

Europe in particular will be faced with a stark choice. Will they stand idly by as America threatens to take over an autonomous nation or will they take a bold stand.

While the hubris of Trump is admired by some, the United States aided and abetted by Marco Rubio and an unhinged Stephen Miller are making the US less safe.

The president is now a lame duck who doesn’t have to be concerned about reelection. Nonetheless, 2026 is shaping up to have more implications than originally thought. A victory by the democrats will make this new foreign policy a lot more difficult to implement. It will provide a system of accountability that republicans have been reluctant to utilize to this point.

There is great apprehension amongst the nations of the world as the president shows his imperialistic characteristics.   Some such as author Terrence Petty believes the nation is heading towards the German idea of Gleichschaltung which means “bringing into line.” One of its aspects was the purging of civil servants who were insufficiently loyal to the Fuhrer.

The next nine months will be critical for the US and the western hemisphere. If the present administration acts on its threat, it will indeed be the end of the present world order which while imperfect has managed to avoid world wars for over seventy years.

The only time NATO invoked Article 5, was on September 11th, 2001, on behalf of the United States. How ironic would it be that the second time would be against the nation that most of the world rallied around.