Delusions of Grandeur and Betrayal
Introduction
When the question arose in 2024 as to whether Biden or Trump should be recommended for election, we believed that Trump was the better choice over Harris, as the former did not belong to the deep state. That was our assessment. We believed this was the only way to prevent World War III. Many of my colleagues felt the same way. President Putin's statement in September 2024 that he would prefer Harris because she was more predictable could become a prophecy in the future, even though Sergei Lavrov dismissed Putin's statement as a joke—but every joke has a grain of truth.
Today, we know that Donald Trump is completely unpredictable and as dangerous as nitroglycerin. In “Diplomacy on the Deathbed – From Peace President to Warmonger,” published in June 2025, I was already extremely concerned when Trump briefly bombed Iran, only to back down after twelve days when he realized that Iran was not only capable of defending itself, but could also reduce Tel Aviv to rubble. At the time, I wrote:
"Rational thinking takes you past the deathbed of diplomacy and straight onto the wrong track."
ForumGeopolitica, 15. Juni 2025
Today, I would replace the word “wrong track” with “hell.”
Greenland is being Pawned off
The Letter
In a letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, Trump wrote the following on January 18, 2026:
When I saw the letter, I thought it was satire, but then I realized it was real—or real satire?
Whether the US wants to gain control over Greenland is irrelevant. Almost 200 years ago, the US wanted to buy Greenland for the first time, and a considerable part of what is now the US was bought by the US and not conquered (Louisiana, Alaska, New Mexico, etc.). Nor can the US and Trump be blamed in principle for seeking to acquire further territories in order to increase their geopolitical reach – but here the means are not trade, but a purchase initiated under military threat, which is not permissible from any legal point of view.
Much more interesting is the approach taken by the American president. When he writes that he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize even though he prevented eight wars, this is – as is so often the case with him – not true.
Israel - Hamas: The US was – and is – a party to the war; the killing continues.
Israel - Iran: The US was a party to the war, and the reason for the end of the attacks was simply the fact that Iran reduced Israel's infrastructure and Tel Aviv to rubble;
India - Pakistan: Negotiations took place between India and Pakistan, without US involvement;
Rwanda and Congo: The ceasefire was concluded in August 2024 and is not holding. What Trump should have done with this “peace” remains his secret;
Thailand - Cambodia: On August 7, the warring parties reached an agreement; on July 26, Trump sent out a call: “I am calling the Acting Prime Minister of Thailand, right now, to likewise request a ceasefire and an end to the war, which is currently raging.” That was all.
Armenia - Azerbaijan: Trump did indeed mediate here, but first and foremost in the American sense (Sangesur Corridor under American control), but the process is not complete and the two parties are not in agreement.
Egypt - Ethiopia: There was no war, but rather a dispute over Ethiopia's Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam; no agreement has been reached so far.
Serbia - Kosovo: Apart from the fact that NATO, led by the US, bombed Serbia for 86 days in 1990 without legal justification, there was no war between Serbia and Kosovo; not a single shot was fired. When this was pointed out, the White House backtracked and referred to Trump's great achievements in 2020.
The idea that Trump is a peacemaker does not hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny.
As a brief interlude, let's hear from Jon Stewart, who rightly pokes fun at the fact that Trump can't even pronounce the names of the countries he has pacified.
Like a toddler who has been denied dessert for misbehaving, he threatens that he does not feel obligated to think only about peace. This is almost unbelievable, because one only believes it because it comes from Trump.
The Davos Speech
On January 21, Trump said that “the world is not safe unless we have complete and total control over Greenland.” In his Davos speech on January 21, he announced that “we [NATO] never wanted anything or never got anything” – all the United States wants is a place called Greenland. He went on to say, “I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force.”
Preparing for Dismantling
Now there are rumors that a compromise will be found, declaring part of Greenland to be American without, however, questioning Danish sovereignty over the whole of Greenland.
Trump's strategy could work: he threatens war, the Europeans organize a dwarf rebellion, Trump threatens punitive tariffs, announces that he will not use military force, and the dwarfs do what they do best and settle for a compromise – at Greenland's expense, of course. Trump further announced on True Social: Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st.
Aaja Cheminitz, member of parliament for Inuit Ataqatigiit in Greenland since 2015, sees things differently and stands up:
“NATO has absolutely no mandate to negotiate anything without us.”
Aaja Cheminitz, January 22, 2026
It Reeks of Munich 1938
We don't have to look very far back in the history books to find a precedent for such outrageous actions by third parties who disposed of a country without consulting it: in 1938, the British under Prime Minister Chamberlain and the French under Prime Minister Daladier betrayed the Czechoslovakians and gave Adolf Hitler the Sudetenland in order to prevent war. Hitler did not abide by the agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 – again, the Allies did not intervene. It was not until September 3, 1939 – after the invasion of Poland – that the British and French reacted, but they did not attack the Germans and left the Poles to their fate.
Appetite Comes with Eating
I don't know whether an agreement – or rather betrayal – as outlined will come about, but it would be fitting for spineless Europeans. There is a high chance that history will repeat itself.
Consequences
Donald Trump would continue to incite this, to “pacify” the next country. In a frenzy, he described the illegal kidnapping of Maduro as a great military achievement by the invincible American armed forces.
This statement can only be understood as a threat—against the EU, against NATO and against Greenland, against everyone.
The next country would probably be Iran, possibly after Cuba and Colombia. In his article “The Architecture of a Crisis Brought About by Hostile Foreign Powers,” our Felix Abt showed in detail that the initial peaceful demonstrations in Iran, which were turned into a bloodbath by Western intelligence agencies—Maidan sends its regards—served to provoke regime change in Iran. The attempt failed miserably. With the help of the Chinese and Russians, the communications of the intelligence services in Iran were crippled. These were based on tens of thousands of illegally smuggled Starlink terminals. According to Professor Mohammad Marandi, the nightmare is over. Nevertheless, the danger has not been averted.
Since Trump already believes that he is invincible with his armed forces and that a betrayal of Greenland would further strengthen his invincibility, anyone who rules out an attack on the grounds that it would be militarily futile would be naive.
Adolf Hitler was on the same trip after the conquest of France in the summer of 1940. France, considered by experts to be the world's greatest military power, surrendered after only six weeks. Shortly thereafter—officially on July 30, 1940—Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, went into preparation. When the Wehrmacht's logisticians informed him that supplies for the troops could only be maintained for a few weeks, Hitler remained confident:
“We just have to kick in the door, and the whole rotten building will come crashing down.”
Adolf Hitler, March 1941
This misjudgment led to the downfall of Nazi Germany and the deaths of 30 million Soviet Citizens. Given the frenzy Trump finds himself in, I believe we should not rule out the possibility that Trump could be carried away into such stupidity. After the Iranians were persuaded to end their attacks on Israel after 12 days of war, a repeat of this adventure by Trump would probably spell the end of Israel and all American oil and military infrastructure in the Middle East.
Distraction Manoeuvre
Finally, I found one aspect of Trump's speech in Davos – it's worth listening to the entire speech – extremely interesting. For the first few minutes, Trump talked about the “great” shape of the American economy: every statement he made was a complete lie. We don't need to go into the details here – Trump misrepresented the state of the economy and the situation on the financial markets to such an extent that it can't even be described as whitewashing.
I have repeatedly expressed my skepticism about the state of Western financial markets for many months, and one trend is clear: the situation is getting worse every day. One indication of this is the almost explosive rise in precious metal prices in US dollars since January 1: gold: +18%; silver: +54% (as of January 26, 2026). This is an indication of distortions in the COMEX and LBMA paper markets, as well as a loss of investor confidence in the US dollar. Donald Trump may have been trying to use his speech and geopolitical threats against friends and foes alike to distract attention from a problem that is likely to soon become reality: the collapse of the Western financial markets.
“If this happens, all cards will be reshuffled and redistributed.”
Conclusion
Now that Trump has dismantled the “rules-based order” that Americans have been invoking for decades, the Collective West finds itself in a state of agony, i.e., the parties involved are no longer even attempting to base their actions on any explainable basis, let alone a legally justified one.
The fact that Europeans are toying with the idea of betraying Greenland and thus NATO ally Denmark—as the Allies did with Czechoslovakia in Munich in 1938—is merely a logical consequence of this; Rutte and his cronies certainly possess the necessary character traits.
Furthermore, I consider it naive to believe that Trump will not attack Iran, even though the realities of such an undertaking will lead to a catastrophic outcome.
Finally, we cannot rule out the possibility that Trump's ranting is a diversionary tactic to distract from the imminent collapse of the financial markets and the US dollar. When – not if – this happens, all the cards will be reshuffled and redistributed.
«Delusions of Grandeur and Betrayal»