Donald Trump is now very clearly of the opinion that he can do whatever he wants in the world, constrained only, as he said recently, by his own morality, for the existence of which there is very little evidence.

But, before we assume that is true, it is worth considering this report from the FT:

Donald Trump's increasingly aggressive campaign to take control of Greenland has attracted sharp rebukes from Republican lawmakers, raising the possibility that Congress will try to rein in the president's territorial ambitions.

As they add:

At least one Republican lawmaker has publicly suggested that if Trump were to use military force to seize the Danish territory, it would be an impeachable offence — and spell the end of his presidency.

Right now, that seems unlikely, but Trump's aggression is only just beginning, and who knows where it might end? Canada is clearly on his agenda, and that might massively change sentiment, not least because I think that would lead to armed conflict.

More pragmatically, as the FT notes:

Several others have said they expect a war powers resolution, which would prevent the president from deploying troops to Greenland without congressional approval, to garner the backing of the majority of lawmakers in the coming weeks.

So what, you might ask. Trump is already ignoring Congress on the Epstein files, which are the almost certain reason for this eruption of world tension (to understate its significance, probably grossly). So, would he ignore his own legislators if they moved against him on Greenland, Canada, and wherever else is next on his list? Most likely, the answer is yes. That is what fascists do, after all.

They also bring trumped-up charges against those who oppose them and then seek to incarcerate those who are seeking to operate within the rule of law, which is what he is now doing to Democrats who are opposing the operations of ICE in Minnesota. So, those calling him out deserve credit for their courage.

But let's not ignore the significance of this. If even a few Republicans side with the Democrats against Trump, and assuming all the Democrats hold the line (never something to be taken for granted), then Trump could face serious domestic problems around which opposition could coalesce. That could be a tipping point, the second I have described this morning. Domestic financial and consumer fears can only feed the likelihood of this happening when there is no evidence of any strong groundswell of support in the USA for Trump's expansionary plans.

I am not understating the significance of what is happening on the world stage right now. Trump's threat is real. It cannot be understated. But the fact that it might be built on very shaky foundations is important to note. His chances of delivery may not be as high as he thinks, and the successors to Trump (for there will be successors) have one great disadvantage compared to him: they are not Trump. That matters. He might be a fundamentally flawed character, but that creates a charisma that none of his heirs apparent have a hope of emulating: as leaders, they all look to have decidedly limited potential. The Trump grand plan could, then, wither domestically. We should not forget that.

But there are three other things to note in that case.

First, confidence in the USA will have been shattered nonetheless, and will take decades to recover, if ever it does.

Second, the world order will have changed as a result. The only thing we do not know, as yet, is how that will work out.

Third, Europe will, as I argue in this morning's video, need to grow up as a result. It is on its own now, come what may.

The times have changed. There is no conditionality about that: last week is now history, and very different from our present. That's how fast things are moving. King Donald may not be able to deliver. He might not have the power he presumes is available to him. But he has nonetheless irrevocably changed the course of events. That is the least that will be said in retrospect of this moment.

PDF of article