Friday, January 23, 2026

Broken Brains, Exploding Heads?

So, did Trump have a good week or a bad one? Scott Pinsker at PJ Media:

By overwhelming numbers, the American public doesn’t like Trump’s Greenland policy or approach. His polling is in the toilet.

. . . With U.S. opinion polls so dismal, Trump is in a difficult spot. Perhaps there’s a way out — and perhaps a deal can happen. Perhaps we’re just one handshake away from Denmark giving us Greenland.

But despite yesterday’s blockbuster announcement, I doubt it. The Danes won’t just give Greenland away; they’ll almost certainly demand trillions of dollars and an irrevocable war guarantee.

Why is anyone talking about "the polls" at this stage? Back in November, I pointed out that the Real Clear Politics averages for the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races were well outside the margin of error for the individual polls in the average. As best we can tell, "the polls" have a major problem, and unless wwe can get a handle on what's wrong with them, or with the RCP averages, I dokn't think we can cite them as a reliable indicator. Pinsker goes on,

Prediction: There won’t be a deal. (I suspect the White House knows this and used yesterday’s announcement as an offramp.)

Domestically, Trump’s focus on Greenland is politically costly. It leaves Trump vulnerable to Democratic accusations of caring more about empire-building than the cost of groceries, healthcare, and housing.

His solution is an incoherent mix of demanding NATO countries spend 3% (or whatever) of GDP on defense in return for not invading Greenland, or maybe invading Greenland for the good of the world anyhow, or something like that. The bottom line is that it shorts Trump, which I think is always a bad idea. The Wall Street Journal takes a similar line, mostly behind a paywall, but we get the gist:

A funny thing happened this week that you wouldn’t think possible from reading the common narrative of President Trump as a Frankenstein’s monster unchained to do whatever he wants: He backed down from his demands to own Greenland. And he did so after financial markets, European allies and the U.S. Congress raised objections. The “authoritarian” Trump narrative was wrong again.

This isn’t to dismiss Mr. Trump’s often wild demands and threats. They have consequences in lost trust among allies and doubts about American reliability. These costs are hard to quantify, but they are real and may show up in a future crisis.

On one hand, we know nothing about the specifics of any "framework" Trump announced, so any conclusion that he chickened out in some way is premature. What he wanted was a particular level of access to Greenland, equivalent to territoriality, and he says he's happy with what's being offered. But on the other hand, his overall statements surrounding the World Economic Forum have caused key NATO members to threaten military action against the US, which is simply an acknowledgement that the alliance is shakier than anyone thought, and Trump has been making his views known:

"What we have gotten out of NATO is nothing," Trump said at the World Economic Forum. "We paid for, in my opinion, 100% of NATO because they weren't paying their bills. And all we're asking for is Greenland."

. . . "What I'm asking for is a [oiece] of ice. . . that can play a vital role in world peace and protection," Trump insisted. "The problem with NATO is we'll be there for them 100% but I'm not sure they'll be there for us."

The inevitable consequence, as I 've also discussed earlier this week, has been for NATO members to consider their relative positions vis-a-vis US sttrength:

Canadian military chiefs have wargamed a US invasion and concluded that they would be overpowered in only two days.

. . . Under the plans, which officials stressed were precautionary and hypothetical, forces would use asymmetric tactics whereby a weaker army attempts to counter a dominant force. Canada would rely on drone warfare and would also request assistance from European allies, namely the former imperial powers Britain and France.

. . . Canadian military positions on land and at sea would be overcome in as little as two days, leaving an insurgency‑style campaign including ambushes and “hit‑and‑run tactics” as the only option, the report said.

Canada’s military is dwarfed by the US armed forces, having only 63,500 active duty personnel as of 2024 while the US has 1.3 million.

As far as I can see, Trump at the World Economic Forum was able to portray himself as a dominant figure, the center of discussion, and the center of attention, which for Trump is never a bad thing. He was able to make an entirely new point about NATO, suggesting on one hand that the US is willing to walk away from it as a deal, which is a standard Trump negotiating posture. On the other hand, he was able to raise the issue that the other NATO countries are neither individually nor collectively able to form a force that would be any factor in a global balance of power -- if the US walks away from NATO, it has very little to lose, while NATO loses everything.

This is another standard Trump negotiating posture -- he negotiates with opponents who have no alternatives. And he did this at the WEF, not at a NATO meeting, when those behind the WEF presumably had an entirely different agenda. I have a hard time understanding the position that Trump comes out of the week in any diminished state.

posted by test @ January 23, 2026   0 Comments