Before discussing the Prime Minister’s strange reluctance to call a Royal Commission into the Bondi terrorist attack we have to talk about the increasingly erratic behaviour of Donald Trump. Threats from the US to take over Greenland are increasing, with greater tariffs on European countries now also part of the mix.
This is because Trump claimed the Europeans weren’t doing enough to defend the island so countries have sent small military delegations there to do some research – but the US President now claims this is an escalation.
Here, Defence Minister Richard Marles has responded in his usual spineless fashion refusing to comment on US behaviour saying instead he thinks NATO will remain united when all sensible analysis comes to the opposite conclusion.
It’s time for Australia to have an open, mature debate about the nature of the US alliance and what we expect to get out of it. The country expects leadership – and it isn’t getting it.
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
When I think about Australia’s lack of responce to the US threats against Greenland I am reminded of a quote from Martin Niemöller.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Trump or some other unhinged US president could make a case for annexing Australia or other regional nations using American security as the pretence. Australia may need to make contingency plans for kicking out US forces and going it alone as far as our defence is concerned. This will be an absolutely massive undertaking but if the current trajectory continues the US may become a bigger threat to Australia’s security than China.
Unfortunately, our “leaders” are pretending everything is fine. It’s appalling that Richard Marles is telling the public that NATO is completely unified.
Maybe Marles was briefed on at the recent slew of FMS cases approved for Denmark (AIM 120D, AIM 9X, Hellfire) and its continued involvement in the JSF program, and then looked at the complete lack of any indication that the US military is posturing to intervene in Greenland?
And then maybe he remembered how Trump speaks and does business, and realised that there is, in fact no threat to NATO, other than the recent pressure being applied to NATO by – Trump – to reduce Europe’s reliance on America?
Either way, I think Marles is correct, and almost all media reporting on this Greenland ‘deal’ is very weird.
I disagree with a lot of that. All of the indications are that Trump is deadly serious about Greenland because his motivation is that he wants to go down in history as the President who expanded the size of the US. It’s the thinking of a five year old, which fits the known facts. He has changed his tune for 3 main reasons: 1) the sharemarket dropped and the US bond market was looking shaky; b) some Republicans grew a spine and were serious about passing legislation with the democrats that might have put in place veto-proof measures to block the insanity; and 3) the Europeans finally pushing back.
Who knows what this concept of a framework of an agreement even is? To me it looks like a face saving off ramp for Trump – but in a week or a month something could trigger him and we will be back to threats and brinkmanship.
Trump first mentioned Greenland in 2018. People who take Trump literally but not seriously are perpetually outraged, and always wrong. This is especially true if they assume US foreign policy is based on his pronouncements, and not the other way around.
Perhaps Greenland is important to the US in 2026 for the same reasons it was important in 1946 and 1910. Perhaps NATO needs to do something other than grumble about the US’ very clear intent to reduce its commitment to the defence of Europe. Perhaps – bear with me here – permanent territorial concessions on Greenland are a very small price for Denmark and NATO to pay while the majority of European countries just fall over the agreed line of 2% GDP p.a on defence – and only have done since last year.
NATO survived the departure and re-admission of France, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I am sure Marles is right – whatever agreement Denmark and the USA come to, NATO will endure.
That does not seem to be the view of NATO countries such as Canada, Britain, France, Germany and all of the Nordics. Carney was right to speak of a rupture in relations with the US, not a transition. But our politicians and military hierarchy are so addicted to the treatment they receive in Washington that they will never change their tune. Or at least won’t change their tune until JD Vance starts publicly supporting One Nation, consistent with the new National Security Strategy of trying to bring far-right-wing parties in Europe to power.
All nations act in their self interest and the US is re-thinking its obligations.
The recently released US National Security Strategy includes the lines: “Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States.”, and “it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European. As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter”.
As for Australia? One mention, in the context of deterring China:
“We must continue to improve commercial (and other) relations with India to encourage New Delhi to contribute to Indo-Pacific security, including through continued quadrilateral cooperation with Australia, Japan, and the United States (“the Quad”). Moreover, we will also work to align the actions of our allies and partners with our joint interest in preventing domination by any single competitor nation.”
The 2026 US Defense strategy makes China #2, and the homeland #1. Everything Carney and other NATO reps are upset about is priority #3. Bear in mind the stated desire for a strong Europe in the Security Strategy. Surely this is at least logical?
1. Defend the U.S. Homeland
2. Deter China in the Indo-Pacific Through Strength, Not Confrontation
3. Increase Burden-Sharing with U.S. Allies and Partners
4. Supercharge the U.S. Defense Industrial Base.
Yes but it’s 32 pages and there’s a lot more than that, including the dominant message that the US will act unilaterally whenever it wants to. You mischaracterise Carney’s concerns (and those of a majority of Canadians) because they aren’t worried about increased burden sharing, they are concerned about Trump ranting that they should become the 51st state and he’s going to make it happen. I assume you have seen the latest outrageous threat that he will impose 100% tariffs on all Canadian goods if their trade deal with China goes ahead. These are not the actions of a reliable ally they are the actions of a rogue state being led by a person who appears increasingly unhinged.
As for strengthening the defense industrial base, I’ll watch projects like the Trump class 40,000 tonne battleships – integral to the Golden Fleet – and the fictitious Golden Dome missile defence shield with a great deal of interest. I guess these activities will supplement existing projects for the Golden Army, Golden Navy and Golden Air Force.
When you write ‘these are not the actions of a reliable ally’, I wonder how you define ‘actions’. There is just zero chance of the US annexing Canada, and it seems the Greenland brouhaha is over, only 10 days after Trump’s words at Davos had everyone on the fainting couch.
Meanwhile, I note there was virtually no coverage, and zero outrage when China’s consul general in Osaka posted that “the dirty head that sticks itself in must be cut off” in response to the Japanese Prime Minister’s measured statement on Taiwan. Everyone must have recognised those as words, and not the ‘actions of a rogue state’.
I’ve seen a bit of coverage of China’s consul general, but I guess I watch that space fairly closely. But you surely cannot compare the words of a relatively minor bureaucrat with the constant firehouse of threats and lies coming from the mouth of the US President. I note that for obscure reasons, South Korea might (or might not) be hit with a tariff increase to 25%. This is no way to run a country.