Reality VS. Wishful Thinking at Davos Summit || Bonus Video
The Davos Summit is garnering a lot of attention right now, and two issues are top of mind for everyone. Greenland and Canada.
Trump has backed away from his threats to seize Greenland, saying that a deal was made. In reality, the US had all of the access and rights that Trump mentioned; however, the US did add the right of first refusal on Greenland mining, even though that won't matter. Crisis averted for now.
Canada fears it might fall into Trump's crosshairs next, so Prime Minister Carney called for middle powers to replace the US-led global order. A coalition of middle powers can't fill America's shoes in terms of naval capacity, budget, and coordination, so it won't work. While speech was solid, it's simply not a feasible plan.
Comments (75)
Annexing Greenland is stupid/pointless. Everyone understands that! Except for the sick orange lying criminal American president. Having a world order dependent on an unreliable US is not desirable. Peter Zeihans believes that the rest of the world cannot trade without the US is a delusion. The question is how it will be designed and given that it will look different. Of course the US will be forced to participate but then with less influence. It is unlikely that world trade will go back to some ancient tribal war, even if there are dictatorships around.
Nice hat!
if greenland is so tough why are the chinese offering them a deal for minerals
Source for that? Trump?
I think the most important point of Carney’s speech is being missed. This is a signal that the ass kissing has stopped. The money will now move away from America. Countries will invest in themselves and reduce they’re reliance on any single country.
100 % tariff announced. Response is now an eye roll 🙄
I fear that Peter may not have listened to what PM Carney really said. His main theme, about cooperation between the middle powers, wasn't a proposal to police world ocean traderoutes in the absence of the USN, let alone a proposal to create a counterforce to the USN. It was about uniting to avoid being individually bullied by a suddenly psychopathic US Federal government in the areas of supply chains, energy, food, critical minerals, trade in general, and much more -- to have a collective-action alternative to merely following a bully's peremptory orders. As a US citizen who actually likes and respects our neighbors and aliies, I respect his view highly, and applaud what he said. It was not merely a prime example of leadership; I think it was actually historic, one of the great speeches of the 21st C. so far.
Do you NOT understand that the U.S. Navy can essentially end global trade? And with countries on separate continents, unable to mutually support each other, it would simply be a game of Divide and Conquer for the U.S.?
Just sayin', if Greenland becomes independent, which would be a disaster for them economically, is Trump perhaps foreseeing China filling the gap? That is, Greenland becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of Beijing, and revokes the treaty were the US can establish bases? That would be sort of an act of war against China if things went that far. At least, a South China Sea scenario in the Arctic. Which is not to say I don't think Trump isn't being a complete idiot.... but if he was really smart perhaps this has crossed his mind. It would be the only reason for the US to own Greenland that I can think of.
We just have to have global trading partners until the trump administration loses the next election (hopefully)
Peter explains the mineral extraction from Greenland is a logistical fallacy due to ice caps. Do mining companies agree? Are we conceding that global warming/ melting of ice isn’t really significant? Geographically, the transportation of minerals from Greenland is far less vulnerable to piracy than say friendly countries like Australia, not to mention mineral rights and shifting relationships from a cost perspective. Not really a factor? Finally, is the arctic becoming more accessible (global warming) to shipping and surveillance or not? Is this just ego or are we actually seeing a long play from this administration?
If the US abdicates as hegemon, perhaps the UAP NHI Alliance of Species could replace the US. UAP = Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon NHI = Non Human Intelligence Alliance of Species = Speculation
And on that note, Canada, as a sovereign nation, can at any time negotiate with the NHI.
Very pretty backdrop
I am understanding that the US can no longer keep global shipping lanes safe from piracy as they no longer have enough destroyers. Carrier fleets can certainly project US power to many parts of the globe where it is consistent with US interests. What is it that keeps all the pirates under control now? Perhaps the US will become the biggest pirate?? Venezuelan oil is a good start. Volodymir Zelenskyy made an interesting offer in his Davos speech saying that Ukraine can assist the “Middle Powers” in drone technology to protect Greenland . Seems to be working in the Black Sea. During WWII Canada had a population of about 15 million and fielded armed forces of just over 1 million (for the most part without conscription) and by the end of WWII had the third largest navy in the world. Corvettes were a Canadian invention with proven design, manufactured in Canada for a fraction of the cost of a destroyer and they were a big part of the Battle of the Atlantic protecting the convoys from German Uboats. Canadians probably don’t have the same will to fight as our parents and grandparents did. Becoming a 51st state is one thing. However, being forced to become a vassal state or territory with less human rights and freedoms and perhaps without a vote is another thing all together. In terms of motivating Canadians to push back. I don’t think we need an alliance powerful enough to beat the United States. I think Canada and an alliance would want to put up enough resistance to a US takeover to make such an attempt ugly and unpalatable for the majority of the US population.
Carney's playing poker, Trump will have to draw 3 cards.
This is actually a great leverage point for the UK. Let us back into the EU without penalty and our navy will be built out further to protect EU global trade. Thanks Peter!
The UK doesn’t want to join the EU. The Lib Dems do but they’re unlikely to win the election.
Different times now. What does the future Navy look like?
What about Sweden and Finland?
I don't get the WWI ish naval mentality. We didn't have a 300 destroyer navy in the 50s or 60s. We were building out carriers and carrier air groups while getting rid of what ballteships we still had. What destroyers we did build were meant to be part of a carrier battle group, and protect the carrier. If we needed a lot of counter-piracy capacity during the cold war, we would have built that but we didn't.
Global trade choke points. Control and defend. I get your point though about WWI navies.
So Peter, if Greenland is so not worth it, why can't Denmark let the US have it?
maybe because the greenlanders should decide for their own?
Greenland is critical to America's and NATO's future defense.
it IS part of Nato and US could have more bases - they just retired ….
AND .... Chinada is fucked if Alberta leaves.
Alberta is not leaving Canada. The majority of Albertans are not interested in separation and will vote accordingly. A minority of disgruntled Albertan's are the ones pushing this futile effort.
WEF == Wrecking Economies Fraudulently OR Weakening Economic Fundamentals OR Weakening Economic Freedom or Weasel Elite Fuckers ALL APPLY!
Brazil has never had a navy? Any navy that can field ironclads, battleships, dreadnoughts, etc. as time and technology advances is not a neglible one. And they've certainly had the number of hulls at times to be globally prominent, even if their choice of platforms skewed riverine rather than expeditionary, but that wouldn't necessarily have been much of an economization in personnel terms given the time period. We are entering into an age of shrinking crews and increased automation, so that ain't an issue. I suppose the real question might be fleet basing capabilities?
Your assumptions again assume the US has elections and doesn’t descend into anarchy and regional state led powers for a time. We all know at some point they are sending the military in and shooting crowds of American citizens. I’d say any assumption the USA retains global military power requires the entire country to hold together. Project 2025 has been explicit that breaking it apart is a goal. Trump is already stress testing “no elections” lines in public. Come on now.
😂
In this instance doesn’t matter what is feasible or not. Is it reality or not. What matters is what Trump believes and his electorate. Would cherish whatever “works”.
Rather, whatever Trump believes his military can bring him, like Maduro.
People keep saying that the US has 'unrestricted' military access to Greenland and thats just not true. Did we all forget how upset the Danes were when they became aware that the US was hosting nuclear weapons there? They raised a huge fuss about it, and there are no nuclear weapons there now (except that one thats lost). So no, not unrestricted; a large amount of leeway sure, but not sovereign.
Middle powers, did he mean Middle Earth?
Thanks for the bonus video Peter 😁. I really appreciate your take, even if adjusting to these situations and realities is really, really uncomfortable.
Losing Canada as an ally vastly reduces the United States of America's strategic depth. It means that the United States would need to militarize our northern border. Expensive! Although the United States military would wipe the floor in conventional combat, Canada has a legacy over two hundred years of anti-Americanism in its educational system – fully confirmed by the rhetoric and actions of the present occupant of the Oval Office. Canada would have a strong advantage in unconventional warfare, including a potential fifth column within the United States. The real kicker is basing rights. Canada's trump card has long been its capability to provide basing rights to foreign powers so they could attack the United States through its porous northern border. Since 1941, that has not been a problem. Well, that might become a problem in the future if you-know-who pushes his luck.
I'm sorry, I had to laugh. We Canadians are a pretty docile, indifferent bunch. Sure, the polite Canadian society types resent America for "big brothering" us and like to look down their nose for any number of perceived shortcomings of American society, but in reality it's just poorly masked envy. You can hardly get Canadians to leave their couch for a protest...or to vote, let alone become an insurgent. The extremely tiny number of people capable of arming themselves and becoming an insurgency identify more with the republican party of the USA than any Canadian political party. Personally, my reaction to a US takeover would be generally positive. I get the 1st and 2nd amendment, Trader Joe's and a vastly improved economic outlook and give up absolutely nothing in return. Sounds like a great deal to me.
And.. what a Well spoken leader Carny is. I think he said "We" as many times as Trump said "I"
Canada's population is over 40 million not 35
The most miserable island in the world: https://youtu.be/LKhw8cZfTeQ?t=1
Yikes!
I don't think Canada has any navel intentions.. it was about trade not war when Carny spoke about middle powers.
How do you have trade without a navy to protect it?
we could form a regional trade with scandic counties, canada, and the e5
I think I'm going to become a pirate once the US steps away - yohoho...
Your argument seems quick to assume an either or. I think that underestimates Canada’s resilience and overstates the binary choice between complete capitulation to Trump or irrelevance. Canada’s strategic challenge is not whether to submit or withdraw, but how to preserve sovereignty, values, and identity while diversifying alliances in a constrained geopolitical environment. We are more resilient than you think 🇨🇦
I think what he’s saying is it’s wishful thinking (the title of the post) Ultimately, in order to get what it wants, Canada will have to work with the bully neighbor, as it has limited levers outside of that, given the US’ naval dominance
Whether a non-US coordination of military relationships between middle powers succeeds or not doesn't mean that the rest of the world is going sit idle or ever trust the US on anything in the next 5 years. There is other choice
Great info Peter, thanks!
Michael nails my basic issue with Peter’s underlying premise, whether in this video or in his books. He has been consistent in stating that the “global order” depends on the USN to secure global trade. I get that and on a fairly basic level, he might be right. But he has never actually identified what threat is out there that is so material that global shipping dies without the USN umbrella. If we get to the point where the scale of local conflicts shuts down trade, we are in a shooting war where everything will be on the table again. Even for the US.
I would like to hear more about this too, but I think he discusses some of this in the 'Piracy Aaaargh' video (and his books). Things like piracy, privateering and uneconomical/inaccessible insurance become issues. That's why he gets excited when ships are getting boarded recently.
Is a beanie with ukraine's colors just a coincidence ? lolll or an easter egg ? lolll
Is this the end of the nation state? Are we going to see more supranational political/economic blocks?
So the argument is that a withdrawal of navys from world seas would result in world seas be infested by pirates? Or is the argument that Canada importing Huawei products would cause US to actually sink the ships?
You have identified two of a few dozen scenarios.
No thoughts on Trump's alternative to the UN, the Board of Peace ? So far the countries that have signed up can be roughly seen as the " basket of deplorables", with a constitution based on that Mar O Lago resort and Trump in charge for life. Intresting times, oh bugger.
It is a joke and most of the world has treated it as such. It is going to die and Trump will eventually move on having pretended it never was proposed.
Trump accomplished exactly what he wanted. When was the last news story about the Epstien files?
I don’t think Carney was referring to a partnership with other middle powers militarily. The USA is top dog in that regard and omnipotent for the foreseeable future and he clearly knows that. I think he was referring to growing a “friends with benefits” partnership as Trump’s deranged madness gets worse, (is that even possible?). No one can predict Trump’s next move but I can almost guarantee it’ll be another move to monetarily benefit him and his family personally and no one down there will be able to do anything about it.
Thank you…seems like PZ got sidetracked and didn’t understand the point of Carney’s speech.
Just another social crisis, while having fun in the sun ...
I disagree, Canada doesn't need military parity with say the UK, they just need to make protecting the economic routes worth it for the UK. TL;DR - paying the UK to protect their trade. But also, without the US, who's going to suddenly attack Canadian trade? The idea that the US Navy withdrawing from that role means piracy dominates the high seas is just ridiculous
The US would be unlike to attack Canadian trade with Europe, but high tech (or petroleum) trade with China is a non-zero possibility.
Bottom line: Nobody knows.
Where is the 25th amendment when we need it? Tough SOBs I get: what appears to be random sugar-fueled thoughts as policy is dangerous. Congress and the Cabinet need to do their jobs instead of raking in dough!
Anybody have a reasonable idea other than “minor electrical issue” to cause Air Force One to turn back almost way to Europe on his way to give this speech?
Trump is cheap and the engineers aren’t being paid in a timely fashion? Cutting corners? Any of those would make sense given how this guy runs things.
To my ear, the issue seemed to stem from Greenlandic self-determination and their interest in pursuing Chinese investment. If the Trump admin is taking the idea of missile defense seriously (e.g. the whole Golden Done thing), and there's precedence for China using their infrastrure as an intelligence gathering platform, then wouldn't it be reasonable for Trump to view Chinese investment within Greenland, however theoretical is might be, as existential? In my mind, whatever "framework" they discussed would need to involve a NATO investment screening mechism for potential Greenlandic projects, no? Edit: hey, look at that. One of the biggest changes in the framework is an overt denial of access to both Russia and China. At least I got that part right.
Do we need navies to protect global shipping? Can't countries buy drones to defensively protect their shipping vessels?
New CFR report on US grand strategy by Amb Bob Blackwill, former Kissinger protégé, head of the NSC Soviet desk under HW Bush & Scowcroft, and W's ambassador to India. He's a realist who wants to use international organizations to tie countries into the US orbit (ie NATO). https://www.cfr.org/reports/america-revived
Sooo, the “Middle Powers” take all the workers put out of work by AI, and put them in their Navies. (Nice thing about typing this, is my laughter is not interfering with my communicating.)
Thanks Peter!
First