I Know Why Trump Wants Greenland (A Reasonable Hypothesis)

Why does Trump want Greenland? Minerals? More territory to govern? More subjects to lord it over? Just because he wants it? To give NATO the finger like he did that Ford worker yesterday, who got fired for calling a spade a spade?

I think I have the gist of his idea.

If I asked you "What is south of Canada?" - and if you're familiar with the map of the world, you'd likely answer "the USA". Right?

Now, if I asked you "What's east of Canada?" - you're likely answer "Alaska" which is also part of the USA. Are we on the same page?

Now, who can tell me what does Canada get if Trump takes Greenland?

Any ideas?

Okay, I'll tell you: Surrounded.

Any lights going on yet?

The USA has wanted to take Canada for itself ever since the War of 1812. Why?

Because of Canada's resources? Maybe. But for as long as the USA itself has existed, Canada has been a thorn in its side. A similarly sized estranged sibling that still lives under the parents' roof - and because for as long as Canada exists independently of the USA in the USA's claimed "sphere of influence", the premise of the Monroe Doctrine (or the current "Donroe Doctrine") remains unfulfilled and jeopardized. Aside from Canada, there are no so-called "first world" rivals on the entire American continent, north or south - either politically, economically, or militarily. Though technically a standalone nation today, Canada is still closely tied to Britain, the British monarchy, the fading British Commonwealth - and also the EU - and as recent events have demonstrated, not intimidated by Trump or the USA.

In short, "this town is too small for the both of us, kid".

Unlike other countries in South America which the USA has historically dominated over, interfered with, destabilized, bribed or intimidated, Canada represents a rival it has never managed to intimidate or bully with subtle political machinations - but could likely overwhelm with its gigantic military machine, but to do so directly and without laying some groundwork first would be a much more difficult, longer road.

Yes, taking Greenland carries its own expensive risks and perils - and rewards - risking open war with former or current allies and friends (increasingly the former rather than the latter) and the end of NATO as an alliance (which would fulfill Putin and China's desires certainly) - but if you're expecting El Trumpo, the president of the USA (and acting president of Venezuela too, apparently) to care a damn about casualties or consequences, you're sadly delusional.

Surrounding an enemy is one way to force them to fight on multiple fronts, spreading their forces thin, weakening their defense, and providing increased opportunities to exploit these weaknesses. In this scenario, should Trump take Greenland and pacify Greenland, Denmark and NATO, he would be afterwards able to launch attacks from bases on three sides - forcing poor, less militaristic, less bloodthirsty Canada to fight on three fronts, and possibly resulting in a short, sharp victory for the USA. Hypothetically, NATO would be either reluctant or in no shape to rush to Canada's defense if they'd been repulsed at Greenland, so that makes sense as a secondary goal of annexing Greenland. It's a hypothesis, but I think it's a sound one.