Yesterday, during a media event, president-elect Donald Trump held one of his typical ramblings (video, transcript) which jump from issue to issue without any connecting lines.
It was mostly about his plans for his upcoming reign. He promised more tax relief for the rich, repelling environmental regulations and an increase in oil and gas production.
But what caught the minds of most observers were his ideas on foreign policy.
Trump is rejecting to further raise conflicts with the most obvious 'enemies' – Russia, China and Iran. He is instead diverting the public by providing new targets – Canada, Greenland and Panama.
Trump said that he understood the position of Russia with regards to NATO membership of Ukraine. He thus seems to be genuinely intended to end that conflict:
We're going to have to settle some big problems that are going on right now. We're going to have to settle up with Russia, Ukraine — that's a disaster. I look at numbers every week. … So, we'll have to get that one straightened out too. That's a tough one, much tougher than it would have been before it started, I can tell you that.
and:
So, you know, a big part of the problem was Russia for many, many years, long before Putin, said, you could never have NATO involved with Ukraine. Now they've said that — that's been like written in stone. And somewhere along the line Biden said no, they should be able to join NATO. Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep and I could understand their feeling about that.
But there were a lot of mistakes made in that negotiation. And when I heard the way that Biden was negotiating, I said you're going to end up in a war and it turned out to be a very bad war. And it could escalate — that war could escalate to be much worse than it is right now.
Well, my view is that it was always understood. In fact, I believe that they had a deal and then Biden broke it. They had a deal which would have been a satisfactory deal to Ukraine and everybody else. But that Biden said, no, you have to be able to join NATO.
He goes on to pressure NATO countries to pay more money to the U.S. weapon industry. But it does not feel like he is willing to do a deal – more money in exchange for continuing the war in Ukraine. It is just his usual way of pressuring allies.
Trump is then asked when he will meet Putin:
Well, I can't tell you that, but I know that Putin would like to meet. I don't think it's appropriate that I meet until after the 20th, which I hate because every day people are being — many, many young people are being killed, soldiers. You know, the land is very flat and the hundreds of thousands of soldiers from each — many hundreds of thousands from each side are dead and they're laying in fields all over the place, nobody to even collect, there's landmines all over, it's a disaster.
…
I hope to have — six months. … No, I would think — I hope long before six months. Look, Russia is losing a lot of young people and so is Ukraine and it should have never been started. That's a war that should have never happened. I guarantee you, if I were president that war would have never happened.
Continuing that war seems to be really off the table for Trump – at least for now. That he is openly recognizing Russia's strategic concern – Ukraine in NATO – gives me some hope that he will find a way to solve the conflict.
During his talk Trump did not mention China at all even as a main competitor or even an 'enemy'. China only comes up in the context of the Panama canal (more on that below.)
Trump also rejected to talk about Iran:
Q: The last time you were here, you were asked a question about the US possibly launching a preemptive strike on Iran. You said you wouldn't answer that question.
Trump: And I said I don't talk about — it's a military strategy. … Look, it's a military strategy and I'm not answering your questions on military strategy. All right. One more. Brian, go ahead. Brian.
Trump has thereby rejected the three potential conflicts, with Russia, China and Iran, that were long leading the headlines. He likely perceives that there is nothing to win in these.
But as he has to provide some fodder for the media as well as for his MAGA followers he is instead coming up with new conflicts which might even turn out to be winnable.
Why not take Canada and integrate it into the U.S. itself? Let's take Greenland from Denmark to better position the U.S. in the Arctic - or recapture the Panama Canal:
The Panama Canal is a disgrace, what took place at the Panama Canal. Jimmy Carter gave it to them for $1 and they were supposed to treat us well.
…
We gave it away for a dollar, but the deal was that they have to treat us fairly. They don't treat us fairly. They charge more for our ships than they charge for ships of other countries. They charge more for our navy than they charge for navies of other countries.They laugh at us because they think we're stupid, but we're not stupid anymore. So the Panama Canal is under discussion with them right now. They violated every aspect of the agreement and they've morally violated it also. And they want our help because it's leaking and not in good repair and they want us to give $3 billion to help fix it. I said, well, why don't you get the money from China, because China is basically taking it over.
China is at both ends of the Panama Canal. China is running the Panama Canal and they come to see this Biden, this guy who should never have been allowed even to run for president. Of course, she shouldn't have either because that never happened. I had to beat two people, not one. But they want $3 billion to fix the Panama Canal that's run by China and makes a lot of money, China.
One of the most profitable structures ever built, because you have ships lined up back to Florida, frankly, and they just keep going through. And the numbers are staggering $0.5 million to $1 million a ship. And they took it away from us, meaning we gave it to him for a dollar, but not going to happen. What they've done to us, they've charged us — they've overcharged our ships, overcharged our navy and then when they need repair money, they come to the United States to put it up, we get nothing.
Most of Trump's claims are false. The charges to pass the canal depend on a ship's size, not on its nationality. China isn't running the canal but has rented port space on each side of it. The biggest problem with the canal is the lack of freshwater needed to run it. It is restricting the numbers of ships that can pass through.
But anyway – like ready made conflicts over Canada and Greenland it is a great theme to divert attention from other conflicts.
It reminds of Ronald Reagan who created minor conflicts, like in Grenada, to be free to make deals with the Soviet 'evil empire' Union.
As Gilbert Doctorow remarks:
The logic I see is that a bellicose stand on produced-to-order conflicts that can be solved at little cost to Washington, the proverbial kicking ass that Ronald Reagan practiced to great effect, is intended to provide cover for what otherwise would look like a humiliating defeat for Washington should it cut military aid to Kiev and stand by passively while the Kremlin imposes capitulation on the Zelensky regime.
Dean Baker is making a similar, but larger point:
Dean Baker @DeanBaker13 – 18:31 UTC · Jan 7, 2025
Trump's pretty clever, he decided that it would be too difficult to confront ostensible U.S. enemies like Russia, China, or North Korea so he's decided to confront allies like Denmark and Canada. It's very MAGA!
Trump wants to avoid the larger potential conflicts as they are too difficult to manage and win. He is instead creating his own small conflicts right next to the U.S. backyard.
It is a nice trick and it may even see some success.
Panama will probably agree to some canal rebates or to a priority for U.S. ships. Canada may concede on trade issues. And the EU, which didn't even protest when the U.S. blew up its main energy supply, may well hand over Greenland without even making a fuzz about it.
All three potential wins which would be welcome by MAGA.
