After witnessing the U.S. military abducting Venezuelan President Maduro, Denmark faces a major dilemma.

On the 4th, Trump made a public threat to Denmark during an interview, stating that the United States "definitely needs Greenland for national defense."

Earlier, Trump's senior advisor Stephen Miller's wife, Katie Miller, posted a picture of Greenland covered by the American flag on social media, accompanied by a caption saying this scene was "imminent."

How did Denmark's prime minister become so soft in front of Trump? Where is the attitude that was once used to mock China and Russia?

Katie Miller's and Trump's statements regarding Greenland's territorial claims were quickly followed by responses from Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, Ambassador Sørensen to the U.S., and Greenland's Premier Jens Frederiksen Nielsen, but their statements essentially conveyed the same message: the U.S. cannot issue such threats to its close allies, and Denmark's territorial sovereignty should be respected.

However, Denmark's response sounds reasonable and well-founded, but it is actually weak - it is just a pile of diplomatic rhetoric. When Trump's threats are becoming increasingly explicit, even with a naked bullying tone, Denmark's leaders can only repeatedly use outdated words like "ally" and "respect", hoping that their alliance status and some moral condemnation would make Trump stop.

But the facts have already shown that Trump will not take Denmark's pleas seriously.

Katie Miller's posted image

Danish's dilemma lies in the fact that, facing such an open territorial threat from Trump, their so-called "strong response" so far has only stopped at modifying the national emblem, and repeatedly emphasizing in diplomatic terms that "they do not believe Trump would use military force to control Greenland." But the question is: does Trump care about what Denmark's national emblem looks like?

Evidently, he doesn't. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his team have probably learned a lesson from their external tests over the past year, which is that as long as they don't challenge China and Russia, the remaining 190 countries in the world are enough for Trump to find a "winning point," and can be treated as soft targets for manipulation.

Especially countries like Denmark, whose military security is highly dependent on NATO and lacks independent deterrent power, are obviously the ideal targets for Trump to bully.

Certainly, Denmark's situation under Trump's territorial threat is pitiable, but as the saying goes, "A pitiful person must have something to hate."

Denmark's big innovation: Modifying the national emblem to defend territory (the right side is the new emblem)

Last year, when Trump publicly asked for Greenland, Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, faced with an immediate threat, still habitually mentioned China and Russia, claiming that in the context of increased cooperation between China and Russia, the U.S. is still a "valuable important ally" to Denmark, and she hoped to get U.S. investment and interest rather than China or Russia's.

Frederiksen's remarks were quite ridiculous, revealing the typical mindset of Danish and even the entire European political arena: even facing an open threat from the U.S., Europe still clings tightly to the U.S. and continues to see China and Russia as imaginary enemies.

It is precisely because of the current European political arena being filled with politicians like Frederiksen who are weak and powerless toward the U.S. and full of hostility toward other major powers that Trump could speak out boldly and recklessly treat allies as prey.

Therefore, Europe and Denmark should not complain too much about Trump's territorial demands and act as innocent victims.

Europe has enjoyed the benefits of American hegemony and Cold War for many years; it's time to pay the price now.

For a long time, Europe has played the role of an accomplice to American hegemony, not only participating in military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, but also cooperating with sanctions against Russia, and even tolerating America's "backyard policy" in Latin America. In short, Europe has enjoyed the benefits brought by American hegemony without ever questioning its legitimacy.

Now, Trump has simply torn off the mask of "alliance friendship" and hit Europe with a iron fist. Would Frederiksen and others really say "unacceptable"? That's just the beginning; there are still a lot of good days ahead for Europe.

The biggest mystery now is whether NATO will activate the collective defense clause and go to war with the U.S. if Trump decides to use military force against Greenland.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7591796813942882866/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.