From Putin's point of view, Trump's statements are imperialistic aspirations - U.S. diplomat

There are deeply troubling signs regarding Donald Trump's statements or lack thereof about Greenland, Panama, andCanada. How serious is this situation, and what potential developments could arise?

We don't know for sure. In addition to territorial claims involvingCanada and Denmark, there is now also mention of Panama.

When I first heard President Trump, like many of us did, talkabout Canada as the 51st state and make remarks that seemed to be either joking or insulting toward Justin Trudeau, whom he does not seem to like, I thought it was just a joke. Then cameGreenland. The idea of acquiring Greenland first arose during his previous presidency when he spoke about it almost as a real estate deal, fitting for a developer like him. He essentially suggested, "Let’s buy it." Now, the Panama Canal seems to be the latest addition to this list.

I believe part of Trump’s fixation on the Panama Canal might be related to the attention surrounding Jimmy Carter’s recent death. Former President Carter received a beautiful state funeral over the last few days, and by law, flags across Washington and the nation are to be flown at half-mast for 30 days after the death of a former president. I suspect Trump might be irritated that Carter is receiving so much attention and is using this opportunity to remind people of something Carter did that Trump viewsnegatively: returning control of the Panama Canal to Panama.

Two days ago, when David Sanger of The New York Timesasked Trump whether he would pledge not to use military force for economic coercion to achieve any of these territorial objectives, Trump responded, "I will not rule out using military force or economic coercion." To me, that response is shocking.

It is something I could never have imagined a U.S. president saying. Such rhetoric is incredibly dangerous, not only for the stability of global diplomacy but also for efforts to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine or prevent China from seizing Taiwan. WhileTrump has been known to say things for shock value, sometimes driven by emotional impulses, like jealousy over Carter’s current prominence, this particular statement crosses a critical line.

When a U.S. president openly talks about the potential use of military or economic force to seize another country’s territory, even hypothetically, it poses a significant threat. Even if Trump didn't mean it, the implications of such remarks are deeply troubling. I, for one, am still in a state of shock that he said such a thing.

You have correctly noted that we may be entering a new phase of global redistribution. While this might not ultimately happen, the dynamics are concerning. For Instance, when Trump claims that the US needs Greenlandand the Panama Canal, China might assert its need forTaiwan, and Putin could raise claims about the Suwałki Gapand Ukraine. They could potentially find common ground and hold discussions on such matters. How serious is this threat?

I was just making a similar point: once President Trump starts talking about the use of military or economic force to recover territories or to acquire territories in Greenland, Panama, orCanada, he opens Pandora's box on the world stage. He then loses any real legal or moral justification to oppose actions likeChina seizing Taiwan or Russia not only continuing its invasion of Ukraine but potentially targeting Eastern Poland or the Baltic states as well.

It’s too early to tell how serious this is. I don’t know how much of it is driven by emotion or how much is an attempt to dominate the news cycle. At the same time, something significant is happening: the report by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith regarding the prosecution of President Trump is about to be released. This report focuses on Trump allegedly taking classified documents and keeping them at his residence in Florida, as well as his apparent attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. election results, which ultimately led to the January 6th riots on Capitol Hill. I think Trump is angry about this and likely embarrassed because the report is expected to portray him in a very negative light.

It may be that he isn’t serious about these territorial claims and is simply trying to divert everyone’s attention for a while. This wouldn't be the first time he’s done something similar. For example, early in his presidency, he said he would impose 25% tariffs on all imports into the United States, regardless of whether the country was in NATO, and a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. While he rarely mentions those ideas anymore, it’s clear he used such comments as a negotiating tactic to secure better trade deals with U.S. trading partners.

Still, as I mentioned earlier, simply refusing to rule out using force to seize another country's territory — and not just any territories, but those of NATO members — is extremely dangerous. Even the mere suggestion that the U.S. might take such actions is already very serious, even if it was made in jest.

I wanted to ask you about Donald Trump and the Russian-Ukrainian war. When Trump talks about Ukraine, he rarely emphasized that Russia has carried out the largest unprovoked military aggression since the end of World WarII. His stance remains unclear, and Keith Kellogg is no longercoming to Kyiv in early January as previously announced. Perhaps they are waiting for the inauguration, but Trumpdidn’t wait for the inauguration to express his bold ambitions for Canada and Greenland.

I think it is important to analyze Donald Trump from the perspective of how he thinks and who he is, as he demonstrated during his first term as president. He doesn't think like a typicalUS politician when it comes to international relations. He doesn't think like an expert in international relations. He does notunderstand or care about international relations. He does not have a theory. He does not care about the march of democracy. He does not care about the post-World War II international economic order or the Bretton Woods institutions. He doesn't care about whether or not this is the biggest armed conflict in Europe sinceWorld War II. He is transactional—he is a businessman. He looks at the US relationship with any country as a relationship between two companies. They are competitive. Business is not based on friendship; it is purely about interests.

For Trump, there is no… unless you acquire another company, right? A company is a competitor. So, unless you acquireCanada, Canada is a competitor of the US, even though it is a NATO member state, the second-biggest trading partner, and has always been a close, special friend of the United States. ButTrump does not care. He cares about transactions.

So, when it comes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he sees it as a transaction. He wants credit for making a deal. He doesn't care about injustice or the danger that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine poses to the international order and to Europe. He cares about the transaction. He wants to be the one who makes the deal and persuades Ukraine and Russia to agree to end the war. He doesn't really care what the terms are; he just wants to be the one who makes it happen. His famous book is called The Art of theDeal. So, we should expect him throughout his presidency to focus on making these agreements between the United States and other countries, or among other countries, without the structure or philosophical foundation of any ideology.

He is not going to say that Russia was unjust or in breach of international law when it invaded Ukraine, because he doesn't care. It is the same mentality that allows him to say that theUnited States should annex sovereign Canada, or that the sovereign territory of Denmark, such as Greenland, is actually autonomous, or that the Panama Canal is fair game. He doesn't care about international law or historical precedent. He cares about the deal at the moment, and that is a new and, I think, quite challenging way for the rest of us to understand how he looks at the world.

Another concern I have is the shift in geopolitical priorities. On the European continent, Russia's aggression againstUkraine is the most significant event in the past 80 years. Yetwe hear talk about Greenland, and now it seems the fight against Iran might become the primary focus. There are fears that some American strategists could advise reducing attention on the Russian-Ukrainian war. This would playwright into Putin's hands, as even a slight shift in the U.S. andPentagon's stance on providing weapons to Ukraine would be enough for him. What do you think will happen with military aid?

On the positive side, Trump understands the importance of being the one who brokers the deal or facilitates the agreement to endRussia's war on Ukraine. Ukraine must continue to exist. Ukrainecannot be vanquished or completely defeated because if that happens, Ukraine will never agree to any settlement. If Ukraine is defeated, then Trump fails, and Putin wins, and Trump doesn't want that outcome either. So, he has said in recent weeks that, number one, yes, he wants to make sure the war ends, but number two, Ukraine should not join NATO. And number three, the United States must continue to provide Ukraine with the military capabilities it needs to survive Russian aggression.

Again, Trump’s mindset is that he wants to broker the agreement, but for that to happen, Ukraine cannot be too weak. Ukraine cannot be destroyed by Putin, or else there will be no agreement. So that part is good.

In addition, knowing his senior staff coming into the WhiteHouse, they think about the world in the traditional way. They came from the former policy-making circles, often with backgrounds in military service. For example, Mike Waltz, who will be the National Security Advisor, is a member of Congress with significant experience. He is also an intellectual when it comes to international security. His deputies, some of whom I've met, come from the academic world and have previous NationalSecurity Council experience. They will always be there to try tochannel Trump’s overall drive to reach a deal in a positive direction. I think that is better for the transatlantic family.

So, I do believe that US military support for Ukraine will continue. It is also clear that the US and its European allies are absolutely committed to continuing their support, even ifHungary, Slovakia, and Spain are wavering. The other members of NATO want to continue providing, and will continue providing, the support that Ukraine needs. At some point, Trumpwill lean in and try to broker a deal. I think it’s clear that, at some point, the people of Ukraine and the leadership of Russia will want to come up with a way to end the war. It will all depend on what the terms are, and that is something Trump wants to negotiate.

So, while we cannot predict what the level of US and European military assistance to Ukraine will be, I am convinced that it will keep coming.

President Zelenskyy recently gave an extensive three-hour interview, directed not just at the American public but specifically at Trump and his inner circle. Ukraine clearly needs to work tirelessly and offer more, ensuring that our message is understood correctly and elicits a favorable response. However, Elon Musk's interactions with CanadianPrime Minister Trudeau suggest we could face unexpected challenges. How should Ukraine approach working with the new U.S. administration?

Nobody knows what the Trump administration will look like, a sit has not yet been formed.

There is a lot of tension growing between Elon Musk and others on Trump’s team and within the Republican Party. I personally don't believe that Trump and Musk will be able to maintain a union for very long. For example, two weeks ago, when both houses of the US Congress had agreed on a law for funding the government, Elon Musk opposed it at the last moment. Thisopposition threw everything off track, created a mess, and was embarrassing for Trump. Elon Musk and Trump have real differences in some fundamental ways.

One key difference is that Trump is strongly opposed to providing financial support or government subsidies to help with the energy transition away from oil and gas. Meanwhile, Musk, through his company Tesla, has been heavily dependent on US government subsidies to support Tesla’s growth. Another major difference is that Musk strongly believes in reducing government spending, while Trump’s policies largely point toward increasing government spending, expanding the national debt, and raising inflation, even though he claims otherwise. For instance, Trump’s massive tax cuts and his policy of expelling undocumented immigrants from the United States would likely drive up prices by increasing labor costs, as the labor force would shrink.

I am not convinced that Trump and Musk will be able to stay aligned for long. However, what Musk has been proposing is equally disruptive, unorthodox, and potentially dangerous, both domestically and internationally. For instance, Elon Musk recently involved himself in British politics, speaking on X about how Keir Starmer could be removed as Prime Minister of theUnited Kingdom. Furthermore, last week, the leader of theChristian Democratic Union in Germany, Friedrich Merz, publicly stated that "our democracy is under attack from Russia, from China, and from the United States in the form of ElonMusk."

When there is this much chaos at the top of the administration, with Musk not even holding an elected or ministerial position, it is impossible to predict what the Trump administration’s policy toward Ukraine will be. The only clear points are those Trumphas stated himself: he wants to end the war in Ukraine, opposesUkraine joining NATO, and supports continuing military aid toUkraine.

What do you think Putin's perspective is now, as we discuss the Russian-Ukrainian war? He appears to have a window of opportunity at the moment, but our Armed Forces are doing everything possible and going above and beyond. Still, the question of a prolonged resource war looms large. In yourview, what strategies is the Kremlin likely to pursue in the current situation?

I do not necessarily believe that Trump is trying to change geopolitical priorities because it does not appear that he thinks that way. It seems he is simply looking for transactional deals to strengthen the standing of the United States and bolster his own reputation as someone who knows how to make business-like agreements. The Kremlin likely welcomes this. This aligns perfectly with Vladimir Putin’s dream: the President of theUnited States, the leader of NATO, suggesting that it might be acceptable for countries to use military force to seize the sovereign territories of other countries, even their own allies. ForPutin, this scenario is ideal, as it plays directly into his false narrative that Ukraine and Russia are one country and that Russia has the right to restore its control over its own territory.

What Trump appears to be saying is, for example, that thePanama Canal is "ours" and that he wants to restore United States control over it. However, Canada was never United States territory, and Greenland was never United States territory either. From the Kremlin’s perspective, they could argue that what Putinis doing is less radical than what Trump is advocating. Putin, according to his own claims, is merely trying to restore Russian control over what he asserts was always Russian territory. Ofcourse, I do not agree with this perspective, but from Putin’s point of view, Trump seems to be engaging in an imperialistic quest.

During the election campaign, Trump spoke of a nationalistic foreign policy, a policy of America First, retrenchment, and isolationism. However, in these past few days, what Trump has been discussing appears to focus on imperialism, about building a new United States empire. This must be music to the ears ofVladimir Putin and his colleagues in the Kremlin.