global.espreso.tv
Trump trying to build roadmap to authoritarian rule in U.S. — professor Huebert
The situation is extremely dramatic. We understand that Donald Trump has effectively agreed to become the gravedigger of the Euro Atlantic world, the world that began to take shape after the Second World War. And today, there are many questions among partners who, until recently, considered themselves close allies.We also understand that this is happening not only in the public arena, but also, I am sure, in private behind the scenes discussions. In your view, how serious is the potential precedent involving Greenland? Because in its essence, it resembles what Putin did when he occupied Crimea. We are talking about the use of force to take control of territories that belong to a sovereign state. And yet Denmark is a NATO member.These are very troubling times. The biggest problem that Canada and the rest of NATO are trying to understand about the Trump administration is that what Trump is saying makes absolutely no sense.The Americans have had the ability to secure whatever basing rights they want in Greenland since 1951. For that matter, they were the ones who occupied Greenland during the Second World War, once the Germans had successfully defeated Denmark. "As for access to critical minerals, the Greenlandic and Danish governments have actually tried to encourage American companies to come in and take part in developing these resources."So, none of that makes sense. Instead, we get these ravings from Trump that seriously undermine the security of the Western world and the security of the United States. The big problem is that the Americans already have the bases there, so that makes no sense.But if they were actually to take Greenland by force, and as we see Denmark and other European allies taking a much stronger position as time progresses, we could also see disruption to any capability for cooperative measures to track Russian submarines in what is called the GIUK Gap (Greenland–Iceland–UK).Now, the U.S. Navy has to stay focused on China, because of course the Chinese will be watching closely to see what happens in terms of America’s ability to keep the alliance together. The Americans cannot maintain that alliance by themselves. They cannot track Russian submarines on their own, given the sophistication Putin has built into his submarine fleet at this point. And so, ultimately, the United States would be reducing that element of security.And of course, Trump is also talking about the invasion of Canada. And if that were to happen, it would mean that Canada would no longer be cooperating with the United States on North American defence, particularly in protecting North American airspace from the Russian air threat.So it is bizarre, because the effect of all of this is a much less secure North America, which includes the United States, and it is obviously going to encourage both Putin and Xi to take even more aggressive action than they have to date. So it is placing the world in a very dangerous environment.The situation is dangerous and dramatic, and I completely agree with you. But there is another key point. We all understand that if the United States simply wanted to increase its military presence in Greenland, it could have done so without difficulty. The US already has military bases there. It could have deployed an additional fifty thousand personnel, expanded airfield capacity, and even moved part of its naval forces into the area, all with Greenland’s and Denmark’s consent.But that is not what happened. Instead, Donald Trump opted for a highly demonstrative approach. In effect, he has planted a political explosive under the relationships within the Euro Atlantic community. In your view, why this insistence on a public show of force? And why was it impossible to handle Greenland quietly, through discreet negotiations behind closed doors?Well, this is what people are trying to understand right now, because it’s not even hypothetical. The Americans have been upgrading their existing base at what used to be called Thule, and which was later renamed Pituffik.Thule, toward the end of the mid-2000s, was basically a relatively small base used for intelligence gathering, particularly electronic intelligence. But since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Americans have been building it up.They have turned it into a space-based system tied to broader security architecture – basically what Trump is calling the “Golden Dome.” But it goes far beyond him simply using that terminology. The base supports surveillance of the airspace between the United States and Russia, and it is also linked to America’s ability to intercept various missiles. Missile defence systems are the essence of the “Golden Dome.”So you sit there and ask: what is the motivation? Is it because, as reported in The Guardian, he’s doing this for his billionaire friends who whispered in his ear and said, “Hey, from an economic perspective, a return to old-style imperialism works”.Is this a function of their recently released National Security Strategy? In it, Trump argues that the United States is returning to spheres of influence, where, essentially, it becomes acceptable to seize Venezuela’s oil.And if that is the logic, then it becomes acceptable to go in and grab Greenland as well.Or is this, once again, a sign of what some people are calling “Mad King syndrome”, where he sits there and says: I am going to become more warlike because you never gave me the Nobel Peace Prize. In other words, the behaviour of an unhinged individual.So it is not entirely clear what is driving this in the current context. There is even a fourth possibility: that by focusing so heavily on international misadventures, he is hoping to further consolidate his own internal power within the United States, especially with the midterm elections coming up. And unfortunately, that remains a fourth possibility.I have read the updated US national security doctrine, and I have read it several times. The first time I went through the text, I honestly could not believe what I was seeing. Yet Donald Trump is quite openly trying to move in the direction outlined in that doctrine, which has been presented publicly.Friends of mine who previously served in past US presidential administrations have told me that, for President Trump, the single most important objective is to assemble what they call a “Vienna orchestra,” a format in which he would sit down with China and possibly with Russia to decide global issues on his own terms. India might also be brought into this arrangement.And now, in President Trump’s mind, there seems to be an idea to create something alternative, something that would run in parallel to the UN Security Council. He calls it a “New Forum.”So my question to you is this: how serious and how dangerous could these Trump initiatives become, particularly for Ukraine? After all, Ukraine is facing ongoing aggression from the very country whose representatives Trump is engaging with. And we are not talking merely about routine consultations with Kremlin officials. We are talking about a meeting in Anchorage, Alaska.It’s very dangerous because, if he is in fact, as you say, trying to generate sympathy, and if he is trying to realign American interests with those authoritarian states, then of course it means that any countries that stand in the way of major powers will be left exposed.For Ukraine, that would essentially mean telling Russia: “We’re out. We’re not going to support Ukraine. You do what you want within your sphere of influence, and we’ll do what we want within ours.” And for China, it would mean: if you want to invade Taiwan, then you go ahead and invade Taiwan. That is the biggest fear coming out of that document.And I also agree with you: just reading that document is terrifying. The first three chapters read like something you would expect from a country like North Korea, where everything revolves around the great leader. The great leader has solved this problem. He has ended these eight wars, which, of course, he did not."And so, getting back to your point, what we seem to be seeing is a wholesale rejection of traditional liberal minded states and of support for democratic countries within the international system. In other words, it does not matter that Ukraine is a democracy. It does not matter that Taiwan is a democracy and China is a dictatorship. It all comes down to who is the most powerful actor on the block."And if you are trying to build an international system on that basis, authoritarian leaders, as Ukraine knows all too well, will act through the aggressive use of military force, as we have seen since 2014. And so, I suspect that Poland and other neighbouring states along the border also have reason to be deeply fearful of what may happen.If, in fact, this strategy, if you even want to use that word (I do not like using it, because it is such a horrible thought in terms of what he is doing), is actually implemented, then it essentially unleashes authoritarian states to do what they want.I will add that whenever we have historically had spheres of influence of the kind Donald Trump is proposing here, it has gone badly. Authoritarian states, once given their sphere of influence, never stay in their lane. Inevitably, there is some kind of misunderstanding, or one side decides to become more aggressive, and inevitably you see wider conflict in that context.And of course now we have to add to that the existence of nuclear weapons. It becomes a terrifying prospect when you follow the logic and the potential sequence of events.If we focus specifically on Ukraine, how do you see the possible scenarios unfolding? We understand that Russia is, quite literally, obsessed with Ukraine. This is a fanatical fixation, not something driven by rational cost benefit calculations.I think Putin has offered Trump a price, a deal. Yet the geopolitical logic of recent decades has been clear: you cannot simply hand the victim of unprovoked aggression over to the aggressor. Ukraine was attacked. We did not provoke Russia. Russia attacked us. And this is a criminal act.A second point is that we also understand Putin has been trying to use Donald Trump as a channel to influence the European Union. And now Europeans are facing a new, major, global challenge: the Greenland story, and the possibility of a split within the Euro Atlantic community.So, coming back to Ukraine, what scenarios do you consider most likely? How aggressively will Russia try to bargain with Europe in the months ahead? And is there a real risk that Europe could reduce its level of support? Or, on the contrary, will Ukraine, as Europe’s shield, draw even greater attention and a clearer understanding that peaceful, pacifist Europe does not have many allies left in the world that Donald Trump and MAGA appear to be trying to construct?That’s the problem. What is ultimately Trump’s intent?If Trump has truly forsaken Western solidarity, then his intent may ultimately be to destroy the NATO alliance in favour of some vision of a self contained, isolationist America. Somehow he has convinced himself that this is the path to security.I fear for Ukraine’s security, because in that context what he would also be doing is cutting off any assistance the United States is providing, which is already becoming more problematic."But if he were actually to deploy military force in Greenland, or in Canada for that matter, then we are entering an even more dangerous space. And you should be aware that in Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, there was a report that our military is now looking at developing a plan to defend Canada against the Americans."On top of that, the head of the Canadian Armed Forces is reportedly looking to expand the reserve system significantly in order to have the capability to respond. These are very chilling reports."If Trump is in fact moving in that direction, he may cut off assistance to Ukraine, but by invading Greenland he could also present Europeans with a two front dilemma."On the one hand, you are right. It is in Europe’s interest to keep Ukraine as a shield against Russian aggression. But if European countries also have to worry about their western flank, then that support may, in fact, dry up.So Ukraine could face the problem, and I fear Taiwan could face it as well, that countries will begin prioritising their own defensive capabilities, including munitions and other key resources.Again, the big fear is that Trump’s actions and that national security doctrine are effectively giving a green light to aggressor states to increase their activities. Because we know what will happen if European assistance to Ukraine is reduced or even eliminated. It would essentially give Russia a green light to move in.So all of this sends very, very dangerous signals to Ukraine right now, and to Europe in general.I completely agree with you. And we also have to recognise one critical point: Europeans are still not accustomed to thinking in terms of an immediate, literal risk of war. Not political pressure, not financial sanctions, not higher trade tariffs, but war itself.That is precisely why Putin has been able to apply such strong pressure, especially in a context where Donald Trump appears passive toward Europe.And if we turn to the so called security architecture on the European continent, the one that, in the Kremlin’s narrative, should supposedly stretch from Vladivostok to Lisbon, this is Putin’s formula and a central ideological slogan of the Russian leadership. But if the security order is indeed being rethought and effectively redrawn, then that security space should not run from Vladivostok to Lisbon. It should run from Lisbon to Shanghai.In other words, we can already see Europeans, and Canada in particular, beginning to reassess the China factor against the backdrop of Trump’s unpredictability and Russia’s aggression. For example, Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, is consulting with Beijing. And we understand that this is not only about Mark Carney.And this is the part that many observers in Canada are trying to figure out, because the Canadian Prime Minister has in fact re-engaged with China this very week.There were meetings at the highest level. Prime Minister Carney flew to see Xi in China, and a number of trade agreements were restarted."One of the problems, of course, that we face in Canada is the understanding that China is actively interfering in the Canadian political system."They have detained Canadian citizens. They also use economic coercion against Canada in a very robust way.But we are entering a geopolitical world where you do not get ideal outcomes in terms of policy choices. Instead, you are forced to choose the option that is the least painful.And I think what we are already seeing with Carney is an effort to engage China in order to balance America’s economic predominance in Canada. It is probably also a way of signalling to Trump. And I suspect there may even be people within the Canadian government who are beginning to think: perhaps China is the economic alternative to the United States.Again, we have not addressed any of the security threats that China poses to Canada, which we have had to deal with. There was a government report, and it made it very clear that there has been Chinese interference and malign intent within the Canadian political system. That, of course, was not addressed.But when another great power is threatening to invade you, suddenly political interference does not seem quite so severe. And I suspect this is part of what is driving Carney’s effort to re-engage with China.I would like to clarify one point. In your view, what exactly is Donald Trump trying to build?Lars von Trier made a striking film, The House That Jack Built. I mention it only because I genuinely cannot fully grasp what Trump is trying to construct. What I see very clearly is the dismantling of the old system. I hear statements from Donald Trump that sound truly bizarre. The global political community is in shock, quite literally.But what, in your opinion, is he actually trying to replace the old order with? And who does he want to build this new order with? What are these strange circles and environments around him? Could they be connected to cryptocurrency speculation, or to renewed attempts to extract and control minerals, strategic resources, and raw materials?It feels as though we have entered an entirely new phase in global politics."The thinking is that Trump is trying to build a roadmap for seizing authoritarian power within the United States."We should look first and foremost at the way he took over the Republican Party, by essentially understanding and exploiting the primary system. We have seen his ability to reshape the Supreme Court, and a Court that has now issued rulings that, in effect, limit accountability for presidential actions. And in this first term he has been very active in trying to remake both the bureaucracy and the military in his own image. So we can see the levers he is putting in place.What many observers are starting to think is that he is trying to create a Western sphere, a kind of Pax Americana, where the United States controls the Western world. In that model, he essentially says to other leaders: you go and create your own Pax Russia and Pax China within your spheres, and then we will all be free to develop these spaces as separate kingdoms."Now, he has made comments suggesting that he is thinking about running for a third term, which the U.S. Constitution forbids."But as Ukraine knows all too well, Russia once had constitutional term limits too. And so I think what will be critical now is watching two things in terms of what he is building.The first is that there are reports that he has directed paratroopers to Minnesota.So the question becomes: is he trying to respond to domestic opposition that is now starting to develop following the shooting that occurred there, when an ICE operation ended in a fatal shooting of a woman in her car? Is this part of a larger effort to provoke unrest so that he can justify asserting even more power domestically?Or are those paratroopers being prepared for an external operation into Greenland, or even into Canada?And if all of this happens, then the fear is that he turns around and says: “We are in such a serious, difficult, and dangerous environment that we are going to have to postpone the midterm elections.” That is what some observers are starting to warn he may be building toward. Now, to be fair, some of his supporters argue that this is overblown. They claim he is simply trying to shock Canada and Europe into taking their own defence more seriously. But the problem with that argument is obvious: you do not impose severe and destabilising tariffs on allies if your goal is merely to encourage higher defence spending. If you are damaging their economies, then they cannot spend more on defence.So it is very difficult to see how that argument can be taken seriously. So, it’s building that Pax Americana that seems to be driving all of these actions, at least in terms of both the strategy itself and Trump’s actions in Venezuela, Greenland, and Canada.So we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that, at some point, we could see American tanks on the border with Canada. We want to believe this is an exaggeration, but the fact that we are even having this conversation says a lot.And there is also the Commonwealth. The Head of the Commonwealth is King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In your view, is there any realistic chance of strengthening the Commonwealth and giving it greater political weight and will in the current situation?And this is the part that becomes so uncertain.If the Americans do move against us, would we see any form of assistance from the British, or from any of the other Europeans in that context? The question, of course, is not so much about the British Commonwealth, but rather about what NATO would do. Remember, Article 5 states that if one member is attacked, the rest of NATO has to come to its assistance.So could Canada invoke Article 5 and say, “Europe, we were ready to come to your assistance. Can you please come to ours?” First of all, there are the practical realities: would Europeans actually have the capability to come over and provide meaningful assistance? And second, would there be the political will?Europe is clearly focused on the Russian threat as it continues to grow. Would European governments really take the risk of also finding themselves in confrontation with the United States? Would they have the capability, and just as importantly, the political will to do so?So if Canada is going to receive assistance, I do not think it would come through the Commonwealth, which tends to be more of a symbolic relationship. I would argue that it would have to come through NATO, if it is going to come at all.
