In 2014, Vladimir Putin executed a bold maneuver by annexing Crimea, a region that Russia had previously acknowledged as part of Ukraine. Now, in an intriguing twist of diplomatic pressure, the US government is urging Ukraine to concede to Russia’s claims over the peninsula. It seems that international norms of sovereignty are more negotiable than we once thought.
Meanwhile, Xi Jinping has indicated that Mainland China intends to reclaim Taiwan. While he expresses a preference for a peaceful resolution, he does not shy away from hints of military action:
During a recent address, Xi proclaimed that a “peaceful” reunification of Taiwan with the mainland aligns with China’s broader interests. Yet, amid escalating military rhetoric towards the self-governing island, he affirmed, “Reunification of the nation must be realized, and will definitely be realized.” This was delivered to an audience of political and military elites, showcasing a blend of bravado and strategy.
He further asserted, “Reunification through a peaceful manner is the most in line with the overall interest of the Chinese nation, including Taiwan compatriots.”
In a separate geopolitical spectacle, President Trump has floated the idea of the United States acquiring the Danish island of Greenland. Trump, with his characteristic flair for the dramatic, has suggested that while he aims for a peaceful acquisition, he is unwilling to eliminate military options:
The Danish foreign minister chastised the Trump administration for its “tone” in discussing Denmark and Greenland, asserting that his nation is already enhancing Arctic security and is open to further collaboration with the U.S.
In response, Trump maintained his aggressive stance, stating to NBC News that “I never take military force off the table” regarding Greenland’s status.
The Trump administration’s ambitions do not stop there; the Panama Canal is also on their radar. Following World War II, the global consensus largely condemned territorial expansion through force, a sentiment reinforced by Argentina’s failed attempts in 1982 and Iraq’s disastrous campaigns in the 1980s and 1990s.
However, as the shadows of WWII grow fainter, the doctrine of might makes right appears to be making a comeback. The strong are once again using their military and economic leverage to push around the weak.
If the U.S. were to distance itself from NATO, smaller nations might find their best hope in strengthening mutual defense alliances, even considering the creation of a unified European defense force. Yet, this collective effort would still pale in comparison to U.S. military might. Deterrence, however, does not always rely on superiority; it merely requires the capability to inflict significant pain on potential aggressors. Switzerland’s military may not have been capable of defeating Germany during WWII, but it was robust enough to dissuade an attack. Europe might benefit from a military presence strong enough to ensure that the American populace would balk at the idea of invading Denmark.
Consider the porcupine—an animal whose defenses are not about outright strength but about making any aggressor think twice.
As noted by the NYT, Denmark has made significant contributions to the [Ukraine] war effort relative to the size of its economy, underscoring its commitment on the global stage.
Military historian Edward Luttwak posits that the Danes are among the world’s most formidable soldiers, ready to engage while peacekeepers from other nations may retreat.
