"Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland..."

"... and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Writes President Trump, at Truth Social.

ADDED: I just want to note that I have seen that Trump kept calling Greenland "Iceland," and I'm not buying the theory that he was merely calling it an ice land and not mixing it up with the country named Iceland.

Trump is now confusing Greenland and Iceland: "They're not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland has already cost us a lot of money." pic.twitter.com/Iu9CI6M2ku

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 21, 2026

I thought of another excuse that could be attempted. Trump likes to rename things, notably the Gulf of Mexico, so maybe part of his plan is to rename Greenland, which, after all, was misnamed in the first place. I do not think it's a good idea to use a name that another country is already using, but at least, he's not calling it Trumpland.

"I mean, whatever you think about the operation to get rid of Maduro, whether you think it was wise, it was an astonishing display of military prowess."

"And if you are Donald Trump and you pull off such spectacular military successes and then get the reinforcement of the praise and the fear, it's self-reinforcing. And that's why you see him now saying, well what about Greenland? What about Cuba? What about regime change in Iran? Is he just going to continue to get lucky in all these circumstances? We don't know, we're still very early in the presidency... [I]t's true that the Europeans are now spending more on their defense. Donald Trump has managed to get them to do something that other presidents have not. And he should be credited for that. But... America's traditional allies will not go back to the way they were in terms of trusting America.... Even if we do get some restorationist type figure who's saying... you know, everyone needs to hold hands. They've now had this lived experience of an American president that says, we're gonna take this territory. And you know, to hell with you, you're just gonna have to live with it...."

Said Jonathan Swan in today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, "Trump 2.0: A Year of Unconstrained Power" (audio and transcript at Podscribe). As the episode title suggests, today marks the 1-year anniversary of Trump's second term in office.

Swan was responding to a prompt from the host, Michael Barbaro. Barbaro had said that Trump's "interventions," while "legally dubious," "have seemed to turn out pretty well for the United States." NATO is "paying more than ever for its own defense," and Latin America is doing "a heck of a lot more to fight those [drug] cartels."

What I'm sure Swan realizes even as he says those words — "America's traditional allies will not go back to the way they were in terms of trusting America" — is that the Europeans need us. Trump is using their dependence to bargain for things that benefit the United States. That's open and on the surface. Who is this character Swan calls the "restorationist" and what is he up to? Is he trustworthy? Is he lucky?

"U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that it would be 'completely wrong' for President Donald Trump to slap tariffs on European nations opposing his plan to take over Greenland...."

"In remarks to reporters, Starmer denounced economic coercion against allies as the wrong approach to resolving disagreements. He described tariffs as harmful to British workers and businesses — even as he praised and sought to preserve the relationship with the United States, which has underpinned Europe’s security and economic interests for more than eight decades...."

From "Europeans see alliance at risk as Trump stokes trade war over Greenland/U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it was 'completely wrong' for President Donald Trump to threaten tariffs on allies who oppose his push to seize or buy Greenland" (WaPo).

"Trump has insisted that controlling Greenland is necessary for national security reasons — a point disputed by allies and some senior members of Congress who have rebutted the president’s claim that the Arctic territory faces imminent security risks from Russia and China. Trump’s unwillingness, so far, to back down risks driving a deeper wedge in the Western alliance or, some fear, causing an irreparable break."

Is the dispute about what counts as "imminent"... or rather how early we need to act in advance of a security risk becoming imminent? I go back to what Scott Bessent said yesterday: "The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency."

Why doesn't Europe want to give us what we need to provide the defense that they rely on?

ADDED: Trump wrote this letter to the prime minister of Norway: "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT"

"I have no vision for Europe.... Look, I have a vision for the United States of America first. It’s 'Make America Great Again.' Uh, I do explain to Europe..."

"... 'cause I think, you know, I’m supposed to be a very smart person, I can ... I have eyes. I have ears. I have, uh, knowledge. I have vast knowledge. I see what’s happening. I get reports that you will never see. And I think it’s horrible what’s happening to Europe. I think it’s endangering Europe as we know it. Europe could be a whole different place. And I think the European people should do something about it...."

Said President Trump, in this long conversation with Politico's Dasha Burns.

Watch the whole thing, below, and read the transcript here.

"It amounts to an updated Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 declaration telling Europe to look after itself and leave the US to manage the Americas."

"'The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over,' it says. There are echoes of a speech by JD Vance, the vice-president, in Munich in February that stunned European leaders by warning that the continent’s greatest danger came not from Russian aggression but from within, with the erosion of traditional values. 'Economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilisational erasure' in Europe, it states, targeting the 'European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence...."

From "Europe facing ‘civilisational erasure’, warns Trump/A new US security plan warns European allies may falter in Nato, urging nationalist renewal as Washington positions itself between the continent and Moscow" (London Times).

Trump's press conference at The Hague.

This is a great press conference. I've listened to it but don't have a transcript to quote yet.

ADDED: "Mark Rutte, the NATO Chief, he called you 'daddy' earlier.... Do you regard your NATO allies as kind of like children?"

🚨 LMAO! Marco Rubio absolutely LOST his composure in the background as Trump is asked about NATO Secretary General calling him "daddy." 🤣

REPORTER: "Mark Rutte, the NATO Chief, he called you 'daddy' earlier...Do you regard your NATO allies as children?"

RUBIO: 🤣🤣🤣

TRUMP:… pic.twitter.com/eJEtjQqjeL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 25, 2025

“I just hate bailing out the Europeans again"/"I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It’s PATHETIC.”

Said JD Vance/Pete Hegseth, quoted in "Now Europe Knows What Trump’s Team Calls It Behind Its Back: 'Pathetic'/Trump officials have demanded more European military spending and questioned the continent’s values. Leaked messages show the depth of the rift" (NYT).

Wouldn't want that to get out, now, would you? 

"Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain said Sunday that he would work with the leaders of Ukraine and France on a cease-fire plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine...."

"Mr. Starmer told the BBC on Sunday that he had spoken to President Trump by phone a day earlier. 'I’m clear in my mind he does want lasting peace, he does want an end to the fighting in Ukraine'.... The prime minister said that he, Mr. Zelensky and President Emmanuel Macron of France had agreed they 'would work on a plan for stopping the fighting and then discuss that plan with the U.S.' Any peace agreement 'is going to need a U.S. backstop,' Mr. Starmer added, saying that British and U.S. teams were discussing the idea.... Since Friday, European leaders have lined up behind Ukraine and lauded its embattled president. Mr. Zelensky is also set to meet King Charles III later on Sunday."

The NYT reports.

What will Zelensky wear for his audience with the King? He's met with the King twice before — February 8, 2023 and July 18, 2024 — and both times he wore those dark green "wartime" clothes and not a suit.  Zelensky has met with other European royalty —Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia (Sweden), King Harald V, Queen Sonja, Crown Prince Haakon, and Crown Princess Mette-Marit (Norway), King Philippe (Belgium) — and each time, he wore the "wartime" outfit that he was called out for wearing in the Oval Office.

Of course, royalty is a game played through outfits. But Trump has his outfits too. Indeed, questioned about his military getup, Zelensky said that after the war, he could wear a "costume," and by "costume," he meant a suit: "I will wear a costume after this war will finish. Maybe something like yours, maybe something better."

But enough about clothing, what do we think about Europe stepping up to make the peace deal? Who will give Trump credit for making that happen and for, more generally, requiring Europe to take charge of the defense of Europe? Whether the Europeans can close a peace deal is another matter, but they concede in advance that any peace agreement "is going to need a U.S. backstop." Could they, instead, just flow endless money into Ukraine? They've counted on our money for so long. 

"My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA."

"I never thought I would have to say something like this on a television program. But after Donald Trump's statements last week at the latest, it is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe."

Said Friedrich Merz* quoted in "Germany’s Merz vows ‘independence’ from Trump’s America, warning NATO may soon be dead/Election winner likens the Trump administration to Putin’s Russia as he bids to take Europe in a new direction" (Politico).

_____________________

* Suggested sobriquet: "The Landlord."

"In their generation, in their hour of trial, the Allied forces of D-Day did their duty. Now the question for us is, in our hour of trial, will we do ours?"

Said President Biden, quoted in "Biden, world leaders and veterans mark D-Day’s 80th anniversary in France/While the U.S. president’s speech was directed at a global audience, it comes against the backdrop of a fierce domestic political battle with his predecessor, Donald Trump" (WaP0).

Biden did not name Trump during his remarks, but he offered an unequivocal endorsement of the global order that the Republican front-runner has trashed, asserting that NATO and other alliances “make us strong.”... “Make no mistake, the autocrats of the world are watching closely to see what happens in Ukraine; to see if we let this illegal aggression go unchecked,” he said. “We cannot let that happen. To surrender to bullies, to bow down to dictators, is simply unthinkable.”... 

Biden has pointed to his administration’s record of building alliances amid the war in Ukraine as a top selling point for his reelection as he seeks to draw a sharp contrast with Trump. In an interview with Time magazine, Biden said Trump “wanted to just abandon” U.S. alliances, and suggested that the former president would ultimately pull the country out of NATO if he returns to the White House.... 

"It will also be a chance for her to prove herself on the world stage in an election year in which her running mate, President Biden, faces questions about his age."

"While no one in the White House would say this too openly, Ms. Harris’s challenge in the campaign is to demonstrate that she is up to the job so that voters will not worry about re-electing an 81-year-old president who would be 86 at the end of a second term."

From this NYT front-page piece:

 

I'd like to see her handle herself answering tough questions, not merely delivering the scripted platitude in the subheadline — "global partnerships are critical to U.S. security, not a burden to be lightly discarded."

"G.O.P. Officials, Once Critical, Stand by Trump After NATO Comments."

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan explain, in The New York Times. (free access at the link).

Key quotes:

Lindsey Graham: "Give me a break — I mean, it’s Trump. All I can say is while Trump was president nobody invaded anybody. I think the point here is to, in his way, to get people to pay."

Marco Rubio: "He told the story about how he used leverage to get people to step up to the plate and become more active in NATO... I have zero concern, because he’s been president before. I know exactly what he has done and will do with the NATO alliance. But there has to be an alliance. It’s not America’s defense with a bunch of small junior partners."

"It’s worth thinking about what the world would look like today if Mr. Putin had crushed Kyiv within days..."

"... as he and U.S. intelligence services expected. Russian forces would now control nearly all of Ukraine and man the border of Poland and other frontline NATO states. If an insurgency broke out in Ukraine, Mr. Putin would be blaming those countries for aiding the 'terrorists,' whether they did or not, and threatening retaliation. Moldova would have been next to fall to Russia, and one or more of the Baltic states would be in his sites [sic]. NATO would be divided over how to respond for fear of Mr. Putin’s wrath.... The cost of shoring up NATO, with Russian tanks on its doorstep, would arguably have been even greater in the long run. U.S. credibility also would have suffered another blow, compounding the damage from the Afghanistan retreat...."

Writes The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal.

"Why Zelenskyy made a Jewish joke in his Netflix interview with David Letterman."

The Jewish newspaper Forward explains.

We watched the Netflix show last night, and I didn't really see the point of making it a Jewish joke (other than I know that's a format for jokes, a format that has been out of favor in the U.S. for a long time):

“Two Jewish guys from Odesa meet up,” Zelenskyy said...  One Jew asks the other about “the situation,” and the other tells him that Russia is fighting NATO. Things are going badly for Russia. 70,000 dead Russian soldiers, depleted missile supplies, damaged equipment.

“What about NATO?” the Jew seeking news asks.

“‘What about NATO? NATO hasn’t even arrived yet!’”

A funny attack on the Russians, but why were the 2 Ukrainian men Jewish? 

"So the Russians are taking these losses and they are taking a hit from the Ukrainian Army with the best weaponry in the world, supplied by the West. But we are not in position to inflict any damage back on NATO."

Said Andrei Soldatov, an expert on the Russian intelligence bureaucracy, interviewed in "Putin’s Pivot to a 'Really Big War' in Ukraine/As his invasion enters its fourth month, the Russian leader is preparing for the long haul. Meanwhile, the military is chattering about its losses, and putting out calls for supplies on Telegram" (The New Yorker).

The Russian Army suffered some big, disastrous casualties, and, to be honest, I’ve been following how people reacted to that internally.... Pro-Russian military bloggers started talking about the losses and asking why nobody was held responsible for these losses.... 

Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think we have some new factor here in that [the messaging app] Telegram is such a big thing in Russia, that it is probably the very first war where we have, if you can call it, some public opinion of the Russian military and some sort of discussion about the military....

"Finland is applying for NATO membership. A protected Finland is being born as part of a stable, strong and responsible Nordic region."

"We gain security and we also share it. It’s good to keep in mind that security isn’t a zero-sum game."

Said Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, quoted in "Finland formally confirms intention to join Nato/Nordic country that shares 800-mile border with Russia looks to end decades of non-alignment" (The Guardian).

"I thought it was a shame, and I kept asking why isn’t she doing something about it? Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi doing something about it? And the mayor of D.C. also."

"The mayor of D.C. and Nancy Pelosi are in charge. I hated seeing it. I hated seeing it. And I said, ‘It’s got to be taken care of,’ and I assumed they were taking care of it."

Said Donald Trump, about the January 6th riot, quoted in "Trump deflects blame for Jan. 6 silence, says he wanted to march to Capitol/The former president struck a defiant posture and repeated false claims in an interview with The Washington Post" (WaPo).

Trump, speaking Wednesday afternoon at his palatial beachfront club, said he did not regret urging the crowd to come to Washington with a tweet stating that it would “be wild!” He also stood by his incendiary and false rhetoric about the election at the Ellipse rally before the rioters stormed the Capitol. “I said peaceful and patriotic,” he said, omitting other comments that he made in a speech that day....

"The temptation of the West for Putin was, I think, chiefly that he saw it as instrumental to building a great Russia. He was always obsessed with the 25 million Russians trapped outside Mother Russia..."

"... by the breakup of the Soviet Union. Again and again he raised this. That is why, for him, the end of the Soviet empire was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century."

Said Condoleezza Rice, quoted in "The Making of Vladimir Putin/The 22-year arc of the Russian president’s exercise of power is a study in audacity" by Roger Cohen (NYT). 

This is a very substantial article, and there are some excellent photographs — Putin scaring Angel Merkel with a dog, George W. Bush yukking it up with a smilingly sober Putin. 

I'll just add a bit:

"The West is not a geographical place. Russia is European, but not Western. Japan is Western, but not European."

"'Western' means rule of law, democracy, private property, open markets, respect for the individual, diversity, pluralism of opinion, and all the other freedoms that we enjoy, which we sometimes take for granted. We sometimes forget where they came from. But that’s what the West is. And that West, which we expanded in the nineties, in my view properly, through the expansion of the European Union and NATO, is revived now, and it has stood up to Vladimir Putin in a way that neither he nor Xi Jinping expected. If you assumed that the West was just going to fold, because it was in decline and ran from Afghanistan; if you assumed that the Ukrainian people were not for real, were not a nation; if you assumed that Zelensky was just a TV actor, a comedian, a Russian-speaking Jew from Eastern Ukraine—if you assumed all of that, then maybe you thought you could take Kyiv in two days or four days. But those assumptions were wrong."

Says Stephen Kotkin, a scholar of Russian history, in "The Weakness of the Despot/An expert on Stalin discusses Putin, Russia, and the West" (The New Yorker).

"One of the striking things about 'Western civilization' is that as an idea it is not particularly old."

“It came to the fore during World War I, when the fight against Germany and its allies — the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires — was conceived by Anglophone liberals as a war of Western civilization against Eastern despotism. John Maynard Keynes, a cosmopolitan liberal, was convinced there was a civilizational gulf even between Germans and Anglo-Saxons, while the Russians, though allied with the West, were well beyond the pale of Western modernity. In the wake of World War I, courses on 'Western Civilization' began to be taught at elite American universities. By the onset of the Cold War, the term 'Free World' supplanted 'the West' because American power demanded a more globally inclusive banner that could rally South Vietnamese, Indonesians and others in the war on Communist 'slave societies.' After the Cold War, however, conservative American thinkers, such as Samuel Huntington, revived the idea of 'Western civilization' as a way of dramatizing how a set of values was now under siege from new threats: migrants, terrorists and moral relativists."

From "Vladimir Putin Has Revived ‘The West.’ Is That a Good Thing?" by Thomas Meaney, who does not think it's a good thing.