Trump threatened that the US might retake control of the Panama Canal if it remains under indirect partial Chinese management and continues to charge the US what he described as exorbitant rates for passage. He then posted
shortly after that, "For purposes of National Security and Freedom
throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the
ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity." Both are
his for the taking if he really wants them, but it’s unclear whether he
does.
.png)
» Available for Trump to claim if he truly desires. «
As regards the Panama Canal, Trump's immediate imperative appears to be rolling back Chinese influence over this crucial waterway, which he seemingly fears could be leveraged by the People's Republic to cut the US off from transoceanic shipment in the event of a crisis over Taiwan. He might also want to coerce Panama into shutting down illegal migrant routes to the US via the Darien Gap. Both are sensible from the perspective of his MAGA worldview that aims to restore the US' unipolar hegemony.
His objectives in Greenland might be similar in the sense of ensuring that Chinese companies don't obtain a monopoly
over that island's critical mineral reserves as well as preventing the
construction of "dual-use infrastructure" that might one day give
Beijing military and intelligence advantages. Direct control over
sparsely populated and practically undefended Greenland, which formally
remains part of Denmark, is seen as the most effective means to that
end.
.png)
» A monopoly over the island's critical mineral reserves. «
Trump's threat to the Panama Canal and his claim to Greenland are also likely meant to appeal to his supporters' expectations that he'll "Make America Great Again" in a visible geopolitical way. Even if he doesn't impose formal US control over them, expelling Chinese influence from both and replacing it with US economic influence could be enough to satiate them. This could also solidify his legacy and lay the basis for his successor, who'd probably be JD Vance, to establish formal control sometime later.
Both are Trump's for the taking if he really wants them since neither could meaningfully oppose the US military if he authorizes an invasion. They'd be low-cost operations with high economic and political returns even though they'd occur at the expense of the US' international reputation. The global community would predictably decry them as imperialist invasions, but nobody would stand in the US' way nor sanction it afterwards. The most that might follow is harsh rhetoric, nothing more substantive.
Quoted from:
See also:
.png)
(1).png)
.png)
%20-%20Business%20Cycle.png)
