Trump Crossing The Rubicon?

As my audience is from across the globe .....

Trump - Truth Social Greenland Absorbed.

... I will explain the title of the post to give context.

In January 49 BC Roman General and politician Julius Caesar was marching towards Italy proper, after conquering Gaul (modern day France, Belgium and the Netherlands). His victorious army was occupying the newly conquered lands, and he was supported by just the 13th Legion. 

However Caesar was facing a number of difficulties in Republican Rome. The Senate was not entirely supportive of his bloody campaigns, despite their eventual success. His political alliance with Pompey and Crassus was breaking down and other factors such as his term in office ending had Caesar feeling vulnerable to political attack in Rome. 

By Roman law, any general had to disband their army before entering Italy proper, which was defined as the Rubicon river in Northern Italy. So Caesar knew he was not allowed to command an army within Italy, but allegedly uttering the phrase "ālea iacta est' ("the die has been cast"), he led his legion over the river and on to Rome, and thus precipitated a civil war.

Now, whether it was his intention or not, that civil war effectively ended the Republic and its constitution, and replaced it with a "first among equals" fictional rule .... by Emperors. Caesar himself never took the role and crown, and had to settle for dictatorship, but the war after his assassination, resulted in his adopted nephew Octavius taking the role of Augustus Caesar, Emperor.

Trump - Truth Social Canada And Venezuela Absorbed.

Now I have referenced this, because US President Donald Trump is currently flirting with crossing a Rubicon of his own, by threatening to militarily invade, conquer, and annex the Danish island of Greenland, and suggesting once again that Canada should also join the United States ... also by one way or another.

To avoid this dramatic step, he's lied, bluffed and blustered about his reasons to take Greenland, but suggesting by force if necessary. The most obvious lie is the defence nonsense. The US has had bases in Greenland since it occupied the island during WWII and refused to leave in 1945, so a treaty was signed in 1951, the Greenland Defence Agreement that allows them three bases (which could house his new Golden Dome wheeze), as long as both countries remain in NATO .... which possibly suggests that the US is not committed to staying in NATO under the |Trump regime.

His other motive, which is not publicly stated, is mineral wealth and land size (Greenland. despite Trumps insistence that its just "ice", is of course an island covered in ice). Now we all know that despite his often stated global warming denials, his advisors are well aware that warming is taking place, and that it will possibly allow mining on the world's largest island in the future as the ice melts ... a potential bonanza of metals, rare earths and other valuable resources, worth billions or trillions of dollars. So undeniably, he wants those mining rights for free, or at least on the cheap, however Greenland can't currently be mined due to the ice, for at least 100 - 200 years as the ice is so thick (averaging 1 mile aka 1.67 km), and as it melts the ground also becomes very unstable making mining almost impossible and very uneconomic ... but I doubt with Trump's grasp of facts, he really understands this.

He could of course just apply to the Danes for future mining rights, and pay the fees/taxes, but that might be in competition with other allied states or even China. But seizing Greenland would also make the USA the second largest country on earth (behind Russia) ... a fact Russian commentators have gleefully pointed out, while egging Trump on. So he was apparently prepared to consider a military attack on an allied state and the break up NATO, if he can't threaten and bully Europe, and especially the Danes, into handing the island over without his having to resort to those military methods. 

But at Davos, when faced with the world's press, and all those Europeans he's insulted and berated for insisting that Danish sovereignty is sacrosanct, Donald Trump confirmed he would (probably?) not take Greenland by force. ""We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won't do that .... I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force." ..... shortly afterwards he announced that some sort of deal over the future of Greenland (or Iceland as he often called it), was now being 'negotiated,' and that he was suspending the previously announced extra tariffs on some European countries.

However as Denmark has reiterated yet again that sovereignty is not on the table, one has to assume an economic/military deal is being discussed. Personally I hope the Danes stand tough, and make Trump pay heavily for any concessions that he has bullied out of them, such as sovereign bases. Whether he returns to the invasion threats again, we shall no doubt see in due course. Sadly his denigration of European leaders continued, this time with his mocking of French President Macron, who wore sunglasses as he has an eye condition. Trump is a President the US can be proud of electing .....

But that question aside surely, if Trump ever did cross that Rubicon, and invade Greenland (or Canada), even the majority of the American population would surely realise that the USA, and its place and standing in the world would be irrevocably changed. It would not be the 'leader of the free world', and that its much vaunted 'constitution,' had, when put to the test, utterly failed.

As it is, the world we all knew before January 2025 has probably gone forever. Even if he pulls forever away from that defining moment of invading a friendly state and ally, the damage he's already done and doing to the US's moral authority, leadership and international reputation, is probably irreparably broken. Europe will certainly never trust the US in anything like the same way again ... so who the US's "friends" will be in the future, will be something of a mystery. 

Perhaps Russia, Belarus, Isreal, Honduras, Venezuela, South Korea and El Salvador will be some of the new US 'allies', alongside client states such as South Korea and Japan (both of whom are forced to rely on US defence due to their proximity to expansionist China and aggressive North Korea). Trump and Vance would probably prefer that to the 'ineffective' Europeans. 

But an unconsidered side effect of all these economic and military threats, lies and insults, will be that Europe will have to wean itself off military reliance on the US, mainly as result of an expansionist Russia, and Trump and Vance's verbal and economic attacks, and their very obvious lack of commitment to NATO. This will eventually lead to Europe becoming another nexus of world political, economic and military power, probably within a decade or so, and thus another rival to the USA, a fact eluded to by the German Chancellor and agreed by other European leaders.

We are at a crossroads, and watching the old world order established in 1945, be broken up by one mans ego .... apparently might will be right, in the new world order.