Strategic Review – Jan 10, 2025
With friends like that, who needs enemies? Thus Denmark finds out how dispensable it is regarding the geopolitical ambitions of the United States, its supposed “strongest ally.”
President-elect Donald Trump is like a cat among pigeons. Neighboring countries, allies and NATO members are all in a flap over his recent remarks about the United States forcibly annexing their territories.
The former real estate tycoon who takes office in the White House for the second time on January 20 is setting out his presidential agenda like a property acquisition spree. He wants to absorb Canada as the 51st state, take back control of the Panama Canal, rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, and annex Greenland, which is part of Denmark.
It is easy to dismiss the incoming Republican president’s talk as bravado and outsized ego. He has a propensity for hyperbole especially when promoting his abilities. Trump has talked about bringing peace to Ukraine “within 24 hours”. He has also previously referred to himself as a “business genius”. During his first administration, he talked up brokering “the deal of the century” between Arabs and Israelis only for that initiative to end up in the disaster of genocide in Gaza and aggression towards Lebanon.
So, Trump’s rhetoric about acquiring new territories for the United States is probably best not taken too literally. It is whimsical and highly speculative. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called it “cosmic stupidity” whose real intention is to serve as a distraction.
Distraction from what? Geopolitical analyst Gilbert Doctorow reckons Trump and his advisors are deliberately stirring up wild talk about annexation to divert international attention from the debacle in Ukraine. The U.S.-led NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is an unmitigated disaster for Washington and its allies. The Kiev regime is facing a military collapse as Russian forces make rapid advances to finish this three-year war.
Trump knows that the U.S. has to extricate itself from the debacle by agreeing to Russia’s terms. Hence the seeming wild-eyed talk by Trump of taking over Canada and snatching Greenland from Denmark. It may not happen but the desire for new properties has certainly grabbed the world’s headlines.
Nevertheless, there is a sneaking suspicion that Trump may be serious about expropriating Greenland. At his press conference in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, this week when he presented his Monroe 2.0 doctrine, he mentioned that the U.S. has had its eyes on Greenland for several years. In other words, it is not merely Trump’s personal initiative.
He called the Arctic island – the world’s largest non-continental island – a vital U.S. national security interest. In particular, Trump referred to Russian and Chinese interests growing in the Arctic region and that the U.S. should muscle in. Climate change is creating new waterways and access to abundant natural resources in the Arctic. Russia as the largest national presence in the region has of course legitimate and lucrative claims.
On the same day that Trump was laying out his territorial wish-list, his son Donald Jr flew to Greenland in a private capacity for a publicity stunt. The younger Trump was not greeted by any officials in Nuuk, the capital, but it was obvious that the “welcoming party” of Greenlanders was a set-up.
Meanwhile, back at the freewheeling press conference in Florida, Trump said: “People don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to Greenland, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security.”
The soon-to-be 47th president did not rule out the use of military force to seize the territory.
Danish and European politicians reacted skittishly like pigeons seeing a cat stalking their coop. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen affected an air of defiance, saying, “Greenland is not for sale”. Germany and France limply warned that European sovereignty was inviolable and that Trump could not alter borders unilaterally. There was even talk about the EU invoking a common defense pact to protect Danish territory. And what about NATO’s mutual defense pact? Will NATO members defend Denmark from the de facto NATO leader, the U.S.?
Trump may be unhinged and arrogant. But one thing that is valuable about his style – inadvertently at least – is that he is exposing the rank hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the United States and its NATO allies.
For three years, the U.S. and NATO have unleashed a bloodbath in Ukraine that risks turning into a nuclear World War Three – all on the supposed sacred altar of defending Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders from alleged Russian aggression.
Then along comes Trump and he is threatening supposed allies with annexing their territories.
The absurdity of it exposes the fraudulence of Western claims about upholding international law and respect for borders. What makes it all the more absurd is the new American president is brazenly advertising his aggression and contempt for “allies” for whom the U.S. claims to be a protector.
In a recent series of articles, Ron Ridenour has scorned Denmark for its abject servility to the U.S. Ridenour points out that only last year, Danish premier Frederiksen signed a “defense cooperation agreement” with the U.S., declaring the latter to be Denmark’s strongest ally.
Denmark has become one of the most pro-U.S., and hawkish members of NATO. It was among the first to supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.
How ridiculous that NATO members are now more threatened by the United States than they have been claiming about Russia.
Trump’s trampling on Denmark’s sovereignty – and by extension, the European Union’s – is a brutal demonstration. Act like a doormat, then be treated like a doormat.
“With friends like that, who needs enemies? Thus Denmark finds out how dispensable it is regarding the geopolitical ambitions of the United States, its supposed “strongest ally.””
The SAME can be said for the trest of Euro’tardia – especially the UK (with its supposed “Special Relationship” now getting thrown under the bus.. OUCH!! 😳) – as Uncle Shylock prepares to squeeze the last drops of blood out of the twitching carcasses of those dumb-a$$ “Allies”
Maybe THICK Brits & Euro’FckTards should’ve paid attention – before they got shaken-down for every last shekel and then set up to be obliterated in WWIII – to Henry Kissinger’s ‘Realpolitik Dictum’:
“To Be an Enemy of the U$$A is Dangerous. To be a Friend of the U$$A is FATAL!!!”
🙄
So the BEST that Britain can hope for, at this stage in the “proceedings”, is to’ get in line’ – BEHIND Canada & Greenland! – and BEG to become the 53rd State!
Ride ’em Cowboy!! 🇺🇸🤠🇺🇸
Just a reminder, many of us were skeptical of Orange CLOWN Trump.
Trump never talked about annexing Mexico, Canada, and Greenland BEFORE the election.
Annexing whole nations was not one of the issues. Bait and switch.
@Yukon Jack
He did say we take America back and make America great again ..
Angela Rayner pushes for huge change to migrant housing amid fury over hotel bills
Story by Michael Knowles •
look just send them home- simple !
MI5 files suggest queen was not briefed on the pervert spy Anthony Blunt
in royal household for nine years
New story by Caroline Davies •
This is total bunk anyone meting any of the royals has their background vetted first this included
jimmy saville e g ” the royals knew”
The late Queen Elizabeth II was not told for almost 10 years that Anthony Blunt, a surveyor of the queen’s pictures and a member of the royal household, had confessed to being a Soviet double agent, previously secret security files suggest. RUBBISH
Blunt was particularly close to the queens mother and would take his little boys to tea with her a footman over heard her say ” you keep my secret Anthony and i will keep yours”
Declassified MI5 documents throw intriguing new light on how the security services closely guarded news that the art historian, of the notorious Cambridge spy ring, had confessed in April 1964, with records indicating the queen was only informed in 1973.Only with fears over Blunt’s health, and of ensuing negative publicity should his confession and immunity from prosecution emerge upon his death, did Edward Heath’s government request the monarch’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, fully brief her.
Only with fears over Blunt’s health, and of ensuing negative publicity should his confession and immunity from prosecution emerge upon his death, did Edward Heath’s government request the monarch’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, fully brief her.
Charteris reported back that “she took it all very calmly and without surprise: she remembered that he had been under suspicion way back in the aftermath of the Burgess/Maclean case. Obviously somebody mentioned something to her in the early 1950s, perhaps quite soon after the succession,” MI5’s then director general, Michael Hanley, noted in March 1973.
Hanley had urged the palace four months previously to sever ties with Blunt, who remained in post and was even knighted after his confession that he had spied for the Russians and caused many deaths of Englishmen while a senior MI5 officer, after being recruited as Cambridge Only, Charteris and his deputy, Philip Moore, “know about it at the palace,” .
The files, released to the National Archives, indicate the queen’s then private secretary, Michael Adeane, was informed only of MI5’s intention to question Blunt on new evidence in 1964, but was not briefed on Blunt’s actual confession until 1967.
The files appear to question the previous narrative in media reports and in books that the queen was made aware shortly after the confessions. According to an official history of MI5 by Prof Christopher Andrew, Heath was later informed the queen had not been entirely in the dark.
she cannot have been kept in ignorance, Security files have previously shown Alec Douglas-Home, who was prime minister in 1964, was not informed until the confession was made public by Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Blunt was allowed to retain his royal post
Blunt, who died aged 75 in 1983, was one of the Cambridge Five, along with Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and John Cairncross, who had been recruited by the Russians while at or after Cambridge University in the 1930s, and was helped by victor rothschild into senior positions in British intelligence, the BBC Foreign Office and Whitehall.
Rothschild promised them wealth and great fame in russia, when they got there, there was nothing for them, Rothschild had lied.
The MI5 agent Arthur Martin describes in vivid detail confronting Blunt in his flat above the Courtauld Institute on 23 April 1964 with testimony from Michael Straight, an American whom Blunt recruited at Cambridge. Blunt had been under MI5 suspicion and questioned 11 times since the 1951 defections of Burgess and Maclean to Russia.
According to Daily Express defence reporter Chapman Pincher he was told by Peter Wright and T Stokes it was patently obvious Blunt and Philby were spies but were closely protected by Rothschild
for gods sake Philby had his wife Aileen murdered so he could marry known communist agent Litzi Freidman, both her and Flora Solomons were part time prostitutes for Rothschild
Blunt’s “right cheek was twitching a great deal” as he dismissed Straight’s account as “pure fantasy”. Martin induced Blunt with immunity from prosecution. After sitting in silence for some time, “Blunt’s answer was: ‘Give me five minutes while I wrestle with my conscience,’” Martin wrote. “He went out of the room, got himself a drink, came back and stood at the tall window looking out on Portman Square. I gave him several minutes of silence and then appealed to him again to get it all off his chest. He came back to his chair and told his story.”
As his confession unfolded Blunt’s nervousness was apparent: “Every question was followed by a long pause during which Blunt seemed to be debating with himself how he should answer it.” At the end, “he seemed to be genuinely shattered,” wrote Martin. Blunt expressed his “profound relief”.
Over the course of several interviews, Blunt described how Burgess, based at the British embassy in Washington with Philby, had suddenly returned to the UK in 1951 to warn Maclean, in the Foreign Office, he was in danger of being exposed and must get to Russia. THIS BIT IS NOT TRUE
Burgess, a known homosexual drunkard, was in “an appalling state”, “behaving outrageously”, Blunt said, telling him rothschild “have told me I must go, too”. Blunt doubted this as it could expose Philby and himself. That was not the plan, he said. If Burgess also went, “it was really blowing everything”. Blunt believed Burgess persuaded his Russian handler, “Peter” – Yuri Modin – to let him go because he knew “his life in England was finished”.
When he came to say goodbye, Burgess was “in a state of really absolute total collapse and he’d been taking, oh all the wrong kind of drugs together with a lot of drink”, said Blunt.
Blunt then found himself “on tap” to Burgess’s handler. He only met “Peter” twice, he said, after being given instruction to find a “white chalk cross” in a particular place, which went wrong because “something that looked like a white chalk cross wasn’t.”
Blunt said that when they did meet, “Peter” said “you must go too”. Blunt said “Peter” thrust “packets of dollars and pound notes” at him, and “absolutely insane instructions” to go to Paris, then Helsinki and then Russia.
Rothschilds had disposed of several royal families including the romanovs, Blunt spied on the Royals
as Rothschild said after the war the british royals would go and buck palace would become an art museum for all the rothschild art collection and blunt would be curator, blunt was furious when victor rothschild went back on his word and let the royals stay in place, blunt said
” because they were sceret jews “