Trump threatens Greenland, Canada and Panama

Trump, Greenland and Panama: when jokes become doctrine

The phrase that shocked half of Spain was short: "I do not rule out the use of military force." Donald Trump, upon his return to the White House, uttered it regarding Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. It was not a campaign blunder but a declaration of intent concerning three territories of interest to Washington. It prompted someone to recall the obvious: Hitler started with the Sudetes and continued with the Anschluss. The comparison is exaggerated, but the parallel is frightening.

What Trump said and why no one fully believes him

The trigger is a phrase repeated in news broadcasts: "I do not rule out the use of military force." Applied to Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory with vast mineral resources; to Canada, a trade partner with a surplus Trump wants to cut; and to the Panama Canal, strategic infrastructure the US ceded in 1999. The immediate reaction was disbelief. A US president threatening NATO allies? Really?

Some argue that it is nothing more than media noise. That Trump plays to change the entertainment narrative—the only thing left of news—by bringing up bizarre topics to set the agenda. And that the mud-slinging machinery, in a state of hysteria, amplifies every outburst. In this reading, the goal is not annexation: it is to instill antiestéticar so that the next request, however half-crazy, is accepted.

The contrary thesis also circulates: Trump simply says aloud that the US sphere of influence is its backyard. Canada lives off the US, people concentrate near the border and depend on bilateral trade. Greenland holds minerals China covets. Seen in geopolitical terms, there is no madness: there is a warning to navigators.

The counterpower argument: does American democracy still hold?

The underlying question is another: can a president do this in the US? The institutional answer is no. The founders designed a system with brutal checks and balances because they distrusted each other. Congress, the Supreme Court, the states, the press. In domestic policy, this framework holds. In foreign policy, however, the president's will weighs much more than the manual suggests.

There lies the knot. A leader can order a military operation without a formal declaration of war. He can recognize territories, break treaties, impose tariffs. Checks exist, but they arrive late and often after the fact. The doubt is no longer if Trump is crazy, but if the system is designed to stop someone who disrespects forms.

The prediction: Trump and Musk will end up fighting

Here enters the funniest part of the matter. The passion for forecasting erupted: Trump and Elon Musk will end up opposed, and both Trump and Milei will not finish their mandates, due to impeachment, coup, or something worse. The prediction is not new. In the yard, there can be only one rooster, and Musk has been tweeting against European governments for months as if he held a ministerial portfolio.

The fight seems inevitable due to pure ego arithmetic. Two men accustomed to the world revolving around them cannot fit in the same photo for long. The unknown is how long the divorce takes and who loses more in it. Time will tell, as they say in forums.

The comparison with Hitler: exaggerated but not gratuitous

The historical simile repeats itself: the Sudetes, the Anschluss, annexation as method. It is a comparison to handle with care, because the US is not Germany in 1938 nor is Trump Hitler. But the pattern—claiming others' territories by appealing to force—has uncomfortable precedents. And those who invoke it do not do so out of pleasure: they do so because language matters.

The most repeated response is that Trump is a professional blowhard. That he does nothing new. That the next four years will consist of waking up every day with the morning's outburst bellowed by the president and amplified with feigned indignation. That his mandate will end in four years, just like the previous one. It may be. But the previous one did not include Greenland on the menu.

What happens with Ukraine and the rest of the board

In parallel, the war in Ukraine continues its course. Some argue that with Trump a nuclear conflict can be ruled out and that the war will end soon. Others remember that those tired of starting wars around the world are moderate Democrats: Obama, Biden. By their deeds you shall know them, they say.

Russia, meanwhile, does not seem capable of taking the Baltic countries and Ukraine. Paper tiger, as Mao said. The comparison of Ukraine with what Trump proposes in Greenland remains, according to some, childishness. And there lies the exact point where analysis stalls: no one knows if the next move is a bluff or the first chapter of something longer.