On the alleged insanity of Donald TrumpOn the alleged insanity of Donald Trump. ‘Those who claim this are incapable of interpreting what is happening today’.

After Donald Trump’s recent declarations on Greenland and Canada and the earlier ones related to the Panama Canal, our commentators remain helpless not being able to see the rational motives behind these kinds of statements. As usual in such cases, the motive of madness comes into play, because if we are unable to understand what the observed politician means, we are obviously dealing with an irrational action.

This was also the case this time, the leaders of Polish public opinion, especially the supporters of the liberal stream in global politics, almost unanimously started talking about the madness of the president-elect, which is convenient for at least two reasons. It allows them to portray themselves and the politicians they worship as reasonable and rational leaders of public opinion and their opponents as the representatives of a dangerous, unpredictable and irrational wave that is coming and against which it is necessary to defend.

The second motive is mundane. Well, if we portray someone, in this case Donald Trump, as a crazy politician, we are thereby exempt from thinking and our public activity can be limited to reciting our favourite formulas masking the intellectual awkwardness of the ‘experts’ commenting on reality. Of course, Donald Trump’s eccentricity facilitates this kind of social tactics, but are we really dealing with a policy-madness that could lead, as the European liberal media are alarming, to the disintegration of NATO and the victory of the forces of chaos?

Not necessarily. I believe that there is a rational core in Trump’s declarations. All his statements, which have caused consternation, but also the actions taken by Elon Musk in recent days, which have so terrified the European elite that there has been talk of blocking Platform X, have one purpose. It is about preparing America and its allies for war. Trump has rationally, if indeed brutally, begun to prepare us for the coming conflict. In the face of an impending clash, there is no room for convention and gentle persuasion, all the more so since the liberal ruling elites of the European West, now under pressure, have done nothing in the last four years, despite the war in Ukraine, to speed up preparations.

Therefore, let us explain what is the pattern, the model of action that hides behind Donald Trump’s seemingly astonishing words.

The NATO summit

Let us begin by recalling that during the recent NATO summit in Washington, an agreement known as the ICE Pact was signed. This is an agreement between the United States, Finland and Canada on the construction of icebreakers, which is becoming important from the point of view of security and, above all, the control of important shipping routes. The Russian Federation currently has a significant advantage over America in terms of the number of icebreakers in service. The Kremlin can count on 46 vessels of this type, including 4 heavy vessels, of which 2 are undergoing repairs, while Washington has only 5, including 1 heavy vessel. If we take into account the declarations regarding the construction of further icebreakers, Russia wants to increase its fleet by a further 11 units under construction and a further 4 planned, while the United States in this segment has plans to increase its capabilities by 3 icebreakers.

This is far too few, especially in a situation of increasing Russian-Chinese cooperation, which also concerns the development of the navigability of the so-called Northern Sea Route. This route is much shorter than the Suez Canal but is, for obvious reasons, considered more dangerous. However, climate change, including the shrinking of the perpetual ice sheet, is making this route more accessible, which the Chinese may begin to exploit by opening a new maritime transport channel to Europe in the coming years. This kind of prospect will make China’s economic blockade more difficult, and will give Western European states in which there is a lot of talk of ‘strategic sovereignty’ often also understood as independence from the United States opportunities for manoeuvring, certainly making them less susceptible to American pressure. This will of course strengthen Russia, which militarily controls the so-called northern sea route. The Kremlin has no money to invest in the region because everything is being used for war, but this is to be helped by the Chinese interested in alternative routes that are safe from their point of view. However, the Russians are not famous for their compromising attitude and in recent months they have started both provocative manoeuvres close to Alaska (in cooperation with the Chinese navy), they are also challenging the border demarcation in the Bering Strait and they are provoking and exacerbating the situation around Spitsbergen, Finnmark and the Arctic region of the European NATO countries in general. The agreement I started with increases joint capabilities, as the ICE Pact parties together have 22 icebreakers. But that is not all. In order to be able to protect the Arctic regions of NATO member states and the strategic importance of this region is growing rapidly, it is also necessary to invest significant sums. Above all in NORAD, airspace protection, reconnaissance and reconnaissance systems.

Canadian declaration of 2022

The Canadian government’s declaration, back in 2022, shows that the needs will be $38.6 billion over the next 20 years. To a large extent, this estimate is now out of date because developments have accelerated and there is probably a need to spend more and faster. The problem, from the point of view of security outlays, has been a Canadian Liberal government headed by Justin Trudeau, which has had no intention of either honouring commitments made almost 11 years ago to spend 2% of GDP on security, let alone thinking of exceeding that level. So what guarantees did Washington, preparing for war, have that this expenditure would be borne by an allied country? None. And that means that either America would start spending far more on its own, or pressure has to be put on the Canadian government, which may not bear it (it has happened) and an election will ensue, which will probably be won by the Conservatives, who have a lead of more than 20% in the polls. So far the plan is going well, the miracle child of liberalism Trudeau, is leaving, and there will be an early election in Canada. If Trump were to act in the style of Biden, i.e. gently, there would probably be little action in the area of security and this means a threat to the sanctuary that is the American continent.

We face a similar situation, in my view, with the Panama Canal. Here, too, economic and strategic interests relating to supply chains are combined with security issues seen through the lens of military threats. In terms of economic interests, which also have a military dimension, the aim is to prevent the Chinese from dominating Latin America using the large container port they recently opened in Chancay, Peru. This will be a much more difficult task if they cannot use the Panama Canal freely. Nota bene, their companies have in recent years bought the operators of this key canal for trade, including American trade. There is also a military and political dimension to the whole affair, because it is impossible to control the Canal without a military presence, all the more so because Panama borders Colombia, ruled by a left-wing president who until a few years ago led communist guerrillas, and nearby, separated only by the small country of Costa Rica, is Nicaragua, ruled by communist President Ortega. The country is a bridgehead for both the Chinese and, more recently, the Russians. America cannot therefore afford to have a key channel for its communications system taken over by strategic rivals and, in my opinion, will also seek a military presence in the region. The demands on Panama are only a first step, an attempt to see if it will also agree to an American military presence. We can call this an attempt by Trump to renew the Monroe Doctrine, but undoubtedly, for security reasons, especially in times of intensifying rivalry, America cannot afford to have this route controlled by enemies increasing the threat to American sanctuary.

Let us go further, that is to say, let us consider what the background to the demands on Denmark regarding Greenland might be. The economic interests are obvious in this case and not worth mentioning. I would like to draw attention to something else, namely the GUIK space. The area of the North Sea and North Atlantic located between Greenland, the UK and Iceland. During the Cold War, this part of the North Atlantic was referred to as the ‘gateway’ to the area and whoever controlled it could threaten shipping across the entire ocean. Today, the situation is as follows - in Iceland, the Americans have their military base - an air and naval base in Keflavik, so you could say that from this point of view Iceland is safe. But is it the same for Greenland and the UK?

‘Control of the GUIK area’.

With no control of the GUIK area, the Russian exit, including the Northern Sea Route, to the waters of the world ocean cannot be blocked. This barrier must therefore be tight. The Russians are also aware of this, which is why in recent years their submarine activity in North Atlantic waters has been at a level, as General Cavolli noted in 2023, equal to their presence during the Cold War. In order to block the Russians and perhaps the Chinese collaborating with them, it is first necessary to control Spitsbergen and the northern coasts of Finland and Norway, which is why NATO has been organising intensive manoeuvres in this part of the world for the past two years (most recently Northern Forrest 24). While the Arctic waters and areas of Finland and Norway are the first ‘bolt’ that blocks the Russians and the Chinese, GUIK is the second. What is the situation here? After the new British Prime Minister Starmer signed a military agreement with Germany in October this year and took an unambiguously ‘pro-European’ course from Washington’s point of view, it is potentially threatening. Firstly, the Labour government does not stand by its predecessors’ pledge to increase military spending from the current 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP, which, given the costs associated with maintaining Britain’s nuclear capability, means that for the “ remaining” armed forces, spending is 1.6% of GDP in real terms, and secondly, a strategic review ordered by the new government is currently underway, which could consequently lead to (jeopardise) American interests because an anti-American turn in British policy is not impossible. It was therefore necessary to put pressure on the Starmer government, which is exactly what Elon Musk is doing. In an ideal scenario, the aim is to overthrow it; in a realistic scenario, to weaken it so that it is more susceptible than before to suggestions from Washington.

‘The gameplay around Greenland’.

The gameplay around Greenland is of a similar nature, in my opinion. The United States has an agreement with Denmark dating back to 1951, which gives it a great deal of leverage, both militarily and economically. In order to take advantage of this, however, the government in Copenhagen needs to be induced to be more concessive and also tougher towards America’s strategic rivals, both Russia and China. In the latter case, I draw attention to what happened to the Chinese bulk carrier Yi Peng 3, which broke 2 cables in the Baltic. It anchored in international waters near Denmark and, despite Beijing ultimately not relenting and allowing the Swedish prosecutor to question the crew, the ship sailed away after more than a month of tenders. Unlike what happened with the tanker from Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ on which the Finns disembarked, the Danes did not opt for a similar step and in the clash with China proved to be clearly the ‘weaker’ player, from a psychological point of view. They should therefore be ‘hardened’ somewhat by first testing to what extent Copenhagen will be vulnerable to pressure from Washington. Greenland is an ideal target from this point of view, both because of the agreements that are still important and the resources there.

It is a fact that Denmark has not invested in the island, which formally enjoys autonomy, for years. If Copenhagen yields, which does not necessarily mean annexation, not only will the Americans benefit from Greenland’s wealth to a greater extent than before, but they will also have the chance to significantly strengthen their position in the GUIK space, which is crucial for their security and key shipping lanes. If Copenhagen gives way, a blockade of the Baltic for the Russian ‘shadow fleet’ is possible, and the Americans are also considering this option. Without the cooperation of Denmark controlling key straits, this is impossible. Not only could this give Trump leverage over Putin, who may be deprived of an important hydrocarbon export channel rather quickly, but it also opens up the European market for US oil and gas (Russian LNG exports go through the Baltic), which the President-elect wants to increase. The ‘old Europe’ loses out but its weakening is also in America’s interest. This is why Musk supports the German AfD, because, among other motives, this kind of movement is a kind of warning to the ruling establishment in Berlin.

There is therefore a lot we can say about Trump’s policy, it is certainly brutal, it aims to build new realities, and it appeals to hard power. It is also risky, because these actions may not have the expected effect. This is all true, but it certainly cannot be described as ‘crazy’, chaotic or ill-conceived. Those who say so fail to interpret what is happening today as a traditional state strategy, in which we mostly refer to interests and strength and talk less about values, and they still live in the belief that a superpower such as the United States acts from altruistic motives in its policies.

Tłum. K.J.