What's funny I several posters punting for Putin and Trump's a pacifist are whataboutism Trump.
A full expansionistic USA an actual superpower would be funny to see in a way. Unlike your favorite crappy authoritarian dictator of choice they have a competent military who hasn't been defeated on the field of battle since the 1950s.
Trump's a pacifist though lol.
Trump is a pacifist. He'll terminate lost wars and just loot the vassals.
Without any war because those vassals are helpless. Being
pacifist doesn't mean being
nice. It just means avoiding
war. Marching into somewhere and taking it over without having to fire a shot isn't war. It has no risk.
US Influence over "Europe" depended not so much on bribed politicians as on buy-in by much of the population there into the narrative of american invincibility. That is shattered. European countries will be having to make new security and diplomatic arrangements in a very differenet environment. It is a cardinal rule of diplomacy that a country seeks alliance with the most dangerous regional power, the most powerful one, so as to reduce the likelyhood of a damaging conflict. The US lost that place in Europe after the very much open war it involved itself, and its vassals, in Ukraine is visibly lost.
The problem for the US
security estabelishment is that Greenland, which is just off North America,
is a territory of Europe. Trump is just saying out loud what others are shying in restricted circles: they feel threatened by the idea of a rival alliance having that territory. The US
will steal Greenland from Denmark not because Trump is talking about it but because the security estabelishment is set on it. That is a direct result of their calculus that Europe will be "lost" to the US in short order. And
that is a direct result of defeat in Ukraine and the end of the myth of US invincibility.
Currently US American support in case of invasion is far from sure.
De Gaulle noticed that back when the Cold War was a thing.
No politician who actually read the so often talked about article 5 would hold any delusion of the US coming to assistance on the event of war because of said treaty. The basis for any belief that the US would fight in Europe were the american soldiers stationed there so that they would certainly be among the fist casualties if fighting started. It was a weak enough belief that the most capable countries in Europe never relied on it.
NATO only commits member states do do
what their governments deem appropriate to "support" any state under attack
in its own territory within the georgraphic area delineated by the treaty. A diplomatic protest may be deemed appropriate. Each government is entirely free to choose what kind of support is
appropriate. The treaty also does not cover overseas possessions outside (apart from one added by France) nor does it cover claims to be attacked outside one's own terrytory, say any "peacekeepers" stationed somewhere else. Or undersdeas cables btw, who what were teh swedes wasting their saliva about a few weeks ago?
Being a citizen of a NATO "ally" that was attacked by US pet terrorists and had to pay the danegeld (hand over the oil to US corporations), I might be more simpathetic to the danes. I'm not beause back in 1961 that came as a surprise and shock to many people. In the 2020s ignorance is inexcusable. The belgians had similar experience, the french likewise, etc. If people in Europe don't know about it, it's because history is no longer taught.