Trump's Grand Strategy

 

A map of the contiguous 55 states.

Trump’s foreign policy moves—wanting to annex Greenland, wanting to annex Canada, wanting the Panama Canal returned, wanting to take Gaza—might seem random outbursts, back of the envelope ideas. But they all make sense on one strategic principle.

Trump is preparing for war with China or perhaps a China-Russia coalition. He is not inclined to be caught flat-footed, as Britain was in 1939.

This is just as well, since China seems to be preparing for war, and Russia has already started.

Trump needs Greenland as a source of rare earth minerals, necessary for chip production. China has the other great cache of rare earth, and the US as well as the rest of the world is currently reliant on them. Doom in case of war.

Denmark is just not big or strong enough to protect Greenland and its sea lanes if China or Russia struck first. Perhaps the US could take it back, but that’s a much more difficult proposition than defending it well in the first place. And taking it back is not enough. Mines must be developed and a supply chain set up in advance of conflict. Otherwise American will not be able to make the weapons needed to take it back.

The same applies to Canada’s North. It too is rich in minerals, including strategic oil and uranium. Like Denmark, Canada is not strong enough to defend this vast territory. And on top of oil and minerals, the Northwest Passage may soon become more navigable—if not due to global warming, due to improved icebreaking technology. This could then become a critical supply route for both the US East Coast and Europe—a shorter route than the Panama Canal. But a route vulnerable to Russia nearby.

Supply routes become critical in time of war. Britain defeated Germany in both past wars largely due to blockade; while Germany’s best hope was cutting off the North Atlantic convoy with their U-boats. Britain always pursued a similar strategy of owning the choke points for trade: Gibraltar, Suez, Singapore, Quebec, Aden, the Cape of Good Hope. America cannot rely any longer, as it once could, on a strong Britain to keep trade routes open.

And so too the importance of the Panama Canal. The US needs to hold that choke point, and keep it away from China. Panama cannot defend it. It connects the American East and West coasts.

And now look at Gaza. Note how close it is to the Suez Canal. A US military base in Gaza is at least in easy striking distance—across good flat tank terrain, let alone in bomber range. The US does not need Suez for its trade—but Europe does. Thus Trump should want to control it, both to protect Europe and, if necessary, to keep Europe in line.

This is also why Trump has just declared 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. These are strategic materials, needed for tanks, artillery, airplanes, ships, shells. America cannot import their steel from China, fostering that industry, while their own withers. And it is better not to rely on vulnerable and not entirely reliable Canada either—unless Canada joins the union, with the US armed forces to build and maintain strong defenses.

Canada not entirely reliable? No; Justin Trudeau has demonstrated that to the Americans. Canada can elect governments with Chinese and totalitarian sympathies; and Americans remember Cuba. Canada has proven vulnerable to Chinese and Indian espionage and influence over its electoral process. Canda is letting in a lot of immigrants who may not be democratic or pro-Western in their allegiances.

I used to be a firm believer in free trade. But its advantages are gone in case of war. America’s great advantage has always been its massive industrial production and self-sufficiency, protected behind oceans from sudden attack. It could always win a long war. Trump must restore that massive industrial production and security of resources to make America safe again. 

Once we see the strategy, we can perhaps predict Trump’s future moves. One can expect him to act quickly and decisively to bring chip production onshore from Taiwan and Indonesia. Expect big tariffs here. I would not be surprised if he offered Denmark statehood, during Greenland negotiations, in order to control the entrance to the Baltic Sea.

Other ideas are welcome in the comments.