pull down to refresh
Yes, my read of the situation is that in 2015/2016...prior to election....Trump was saying things like "why do we even need to be in NATO, etc".....
My take is he went in with the idea he could just pull out, then military advisors explained to him that it wasn't so simple, that in effect Europe was our advanced warning system and there would be some drawbacks to not having that....
Hence, the full court press to "get Greenland" during his second term. I think everyone in Europe knows thats the plan, which is why thats why they are so hysterical trying to stop it.
Greenland as a substitute for NATO is the only explanation that makes much sense to me, because there are agreements in place already that allow the US military to pretty much do whatever they want in Greenland.
Both sides have been very restrained in saying not the truth out loud, I think because its one of those things that once spoken can't be taken back (kinda like telling your spouse you are considering divorce).....
Once it gets to the stage where they are "saying it out loud" Trump is going to have the better narrative...."why should american tax dollars be paying for french defense....etc"
Domestically it would be hard for democrats to counter this as Trump will use the same message.
Having said all that, there are quite of few negative things that will probably come from this....I can't see how this doesn't lead to active animosity between US - EU going forward. Tariffs, fines against US companies, travel restrictions, etc....
The ultimate Trump card is that Europe needs America to stay in NATO way more than America needs to stay in NATO, so this obviously ends with America getting what it wants from Europe.