The US might abandon its new interest in backing radical “security guarantees” for Ukraine due to worsening ties with Western Europe; increasingly Polish-led Central & Eastern Europe could replace Western Europe’s strategic importance for the US; and intra-EU rifts might accordingly widen.
You’d have to ask yourself wtf is going on in the heads of Starmer, Merz and Macron (not to mention Carney who’s promising to invoke Article 5) that they would send a multinational ‘deterrent’ force of 15 troops to Greenland.
I politely contend with the author’s premise that the EU lacks leverage over Trump. Such a premise might hold in a world driven by rationality, but power relations, not least in politics, often function otherwise. The fact is that the EU has proven itself a master at turning its weakness into an asset, particularly in exploiting Trump. The “lopsided” U.S.–EU trade deal, as a quid pro quo, was more of a strategic win for Ukraine and Co. than for the U.S., for it solidified Trump’s commitment to NATO support for Ukraine, within unstated limits. Now Brussels is using Greenland and tariffs as pressure tools over Trump’s policy reversal on Ukraine (a shift driven in part by false flags and “deep-state” manipulation). Trump’s hands-off approach, by contrast, has given his EU “subordinates” the impression that he values NATO unity on Ukraine above all else, possibly incentivizing their efforts to act as the “tail wagging” Trump’s dog.
Trump could have leveraged U.S. preponderance to extract far more from his European vassals than he has to date, including sanctions on EU banking, along with reduced military-intelligence sharing or other cooperation, for their refusal to back a U.S.–Russia détente, U.S. priorities on drugs and migration, and so on. Trump not only refused to consider any of this, but also promised Ukraine military aid for rare earths in February (this was *before* the blowup with Zelensky, mind you): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT_EmmysebY. [7:45: “With Ukraine and this minerals deal, what does Ukraine get in return, Mr. President?” 7:51 (Trump): “Uh, $350 billion, and lots of equipment, military equipment, and the right to fight on.”] Trump was always torn between sympathy for Ukraine and pragmatism toward Russia, a duality that his “frenemies” took advantage of. And Trump never pushed Europe toward a Ukraine peace.
This likely leads Brussels to conclude that Greenland is one more valve that it can use to force Trump into a “compromise” that further estranges him from Russia and increases NATO entanglement in Ukraine. In this case, somewhat ironically, the EU is playing a bigger role in threatening the end of NATO than Trump is. Its willingness to escalate on Greenland precipitated Trump and his advisers’ murmurings about military force or a “choice” between U.S. and NATO. At any rate, the EU probably calculates that it can exert pressure on Trump through most of his principal advisers, among them Rubio and Hegseth, who have been far more wedded to the conventional U.S./NATO setup than Trump has. Given past history, I expect that the EU will offer a “sweetheart” settlement that will cause Trump to back down, possibly a reconfiguration of the original U.S. plan for Greenland that now accommodates EU policy on Ukraine.
This analysis is based on a continuing policy by the Trump administration, yes Poland is beginning to flex its economic and potential military strength but the reawakening of European Defence production with Germany wishing to retain it present position within the EU will see a New World Order with Europe being the Democratic Powerhouse and the spat regarding Greenland consolidates this movement. The threat from Russia and the disintegration of the USA will make it more likely.
Given that Denmark and EU is giving the US everything it wants in Greenland, this move only makes sense if the US perceives Europe (& Canada) and as a source of insecurity or challenge. To play devil's advocate, if the EU wanted to really pressure the US it could use a lateral strategy like cutting off the European economy from US client states much more integral to US strategies (i.e Turkey, Jordan, Israel) to cause them economic meltdowns that the US would have to backstop. But the EU doesn't have a strategic bone in its corpse.
I think that in a true multi-polar world, alliances can shift much more, and much more quickly than has been the case over the last 80 or so years. So its not unreasonable to want to lock it down.
Also, this is strategically the best time to get Greenland of the last 30 years. Europe is in a de facto war with Russa and has depleted much of its stockpiles of things like artillery. I mean realistically the US will own Greenland in 12 months time, and there won't ever be a shot fired.
Clearly the “rules-based order” — and neoliberalism in general — is now dead in the water. The EU, as accurately predicted by Vicky Nuland in 2014, has been comprehensively “fucked”; all that remains is to deal with the humiliation of watching her “lover” walk out of the door on his way to the next conquest. If the EU had been a sensible geopolitical actor like Russia, rather than a jaded but still hopeful prostitute to the interests of her Atlanticist elites, she would have balanced between different clients. Well, hopefully she will pick herself up and rediscover her dignity at some point.
Nuland never said that. She dismissively referred to the European Union with the phrase “fuck the EU” that leaked phone call you all love to cite as some sort of smoking gun
But regarding the power dynamic, she said, "fuck the EU" in frustration, with EU not complying (or doing enough, or whatever). Kind of refuting your contention.
You've misquoted her, and failed to understand her point.
I might read the link if you post it, but my point was obviously ironic, not literalistic. Nuland said (literally) “fuck the EU” and the EU is now, as a direct result of her (and its) actions in fomenting the Maidan coup, (ironically) fucked.
For remind, Poland is on the same path than France and Germany on the Greenland topic.
In its power delusions and Russia hate, it seems that Poland is not followed by Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Bulgaria. Romania will do what France and Germany will order it. Only tiny dumb crazy Balts are on the same way than Poland.
And if Poland goes to far in USA sucking and playing against France and Germany , the answer will be terrible: Poland doesn't exist economically without western Europe.
If we throw out Polish workers, if we relocate our industrial production elsewhere and if we impose custom duties on Polish product, in 5 years, Poland will go back to the shit hole it was before being imposed in UE by USA.
Historically Poland has done very well in different time periods where they had enough peace to develop. Those periods often didn't last very long though, because of their terrible location.
The Polish need to learn from the Swiss and build some proper mountains, if they care about their future.
We need to acknowledge that the EU and Poland in particular should not take first place in our relations with Russia. If and when we become friends with Russia the EU will symply follow our lead. Trump for the good of the USA & the world become friends with Russia. The 2 most powerful countries in the world becoming friends is an absolute must . .
1 Little side consideration on trade wars: the German and Italian gold reserves are mostly in the US vaults! Easy to get it back now, good luck!
2 The EU and UK/Canada are moving randomly like chickens without heads. But if they had a strategy, apart from mending ties with Russia, they would wake up and signal to the US that a war over Greenland would be a war between nuclear powers. That erases every military balance of powers consideration: the US would win easily and yet it cannot play the risk. Nice fun to nuke Paris and Berlin, but if you get nukes on New York and Chicago in change, is it worth the risk? Stalemate!
In a nuclear war, the weaker side can be believed to actually resort to nukes by desperation, so it does have deterrence. North Korea is the proof.
I don't actually consider all of the EU to be allies. For one many are woke crazies and globalists. The Brussels gang does not acknowledge that in many more ways the Russians are closer allies, . Well to the quieter half of the USA
Isn't this article drastically underestimating the EU's importance? Honestly, what if Trump really annex Greenland militarily and the EU, impotent to take it back by force, goes all in against Trump - which ideologically is what they want to do already anyway - and says "ok, let's play this game. Reciprocal tariffs, all US military out of the EU and no more support for any of your operations, and stay the effe out of Gibraltar and the mediterranean too, since even a combo of all of your carriers can't pass the straits without our permission. Meanwhile, restarting trade with Russia and total technological cooperation with China."
There is a huge talk about "daddy US" towards the EU, but the core element that many i think are missing is that the cold war is over and the EU actually DONT need the US's military. For what? The only close by enemy they have is Russia, and it is a self created enemy that would probably be satisfied with some groveling and renewed trade ties with the EU. What kind of end-of-the-world event would happen if the EU, already backed up by Trump into tariffs and now even a militarily confrontation, said "fine, then our alliance is over. Get the hell out of Europe"?
A confrontation with the US would require years of preparation by the EU, even disregarding the presence of the US military in Europe. If Microsoft discontinues its Office 365 service and Amazon its cloud products, the lights will go out in EU administrations and many companies. I also think that "a degree of subservience and resumed trade relations with the EU" will have little impact on Russia. The Russian economy has reoriented itself and now produces much of its own goods. Perhaps in the luxury sector, European products still hold significance for the top 10,000 Russians. Everything else can be imported from the BRICS countries. Due to its decades of subservience to the US, the EU is completely dependent through its interconnectedness. If the EU now wants to break free from the US, it faces a long and difficult journey. With the already simmering unrest caused by economic decline, many Western European countries could experience uncontrolled changes. The EU has put itself in a dead end. Therefore, it will likely follow the US obediently on the Greenland issue as well.
Again, this is underestimating the role of the EU's economy in the world. It's not just luxury clothes and wine - the EU countries provide a lot of high tech products, from farmaceuticals to machinery and financial services. While replacing stuff like microsoft office or amazon servers - which are not exactly high tech products - is relatively trivial, though the adjustment period would be painful. The real pain would be more in military, finance services, right now even GPL - but that's it, the EU imports mainly services from the US, not products, and services CAN be replaced.
Also, the Greenland issue is NOT the kind of issue that can be followed. Here we are talking about robbing a EU country, and a NATO member, of a large and valuable territory. It simply can not be politely managed. Anything else - like providing favoured access to US business in Greenland, or more NATO bases there - could be worked on, but not a direct annexation.
It seems to me that in the Cold War, Europe (or parts of it) tried to triangulate between the US and the USSR. Of course Western Europe wanted to stay a lot closer to the US than fall under USSR control...but playing the kingmaker where they could was a useful leverage point for otherwise powerless countries. It's understandable that they would do so, not a moral judgement, just game theory at the limit.
Now though, things are getting complicated. The US, EU, Russia, and China are now effectively (or expected to soon be) major powers-ish.
My concern is that the Brussels centric EU will try to ally itself more and more with China over time. A huge gray bureaucratic super-state with some sort of social credit system and lots of speech controls seems to fit the bureaucratic preference.
However, then Russia could become the global kingmaker. Or at least Europe's ability to be a kingmaker is eroded and generally defunct.
Trump clearly sees the problem and potential here -- Joining up with Russia strategically, the US would be able to lock the current order in place in very favorable terms for the foreseeable future. (Simps that think Russia and China are natural allies are missing some very significant conflict/competition between them, including a disputed border; same problem with the EU and a Russian alliance -- not happening). This would include essentially the whole of the arctic (Canada is there currently, yes, but the far northern territories could more easily get "donated" than Greenland).
This, to me, explains a lot of the obsessive hatred that the EU has for Russia right now. Their ability to get the US to fight their Russian rival ends if/when they pivot. Trump, to his credit, seems to be trying to force them to show their cards early -- which seems smart.
The Cunning Plan is a classic example of a Tripwire Strategy. Merz and Macron are aware that 15 troops cannot stop the US Marines, so they are using them as human shields. By placing NATO troops in the path of a US acquisition, they are daring Trump to commit geopolitical fratricide by attacking his own allies. They believe the Pentagon and the US Deep State are strong enough to refuse orders to engage German or British troops. This is a high-stakes game of chicken, with Europe betting that the taboo against killing allies is stronger than Trump's will. However, they are making a critical mistake by applying old alliance norms to a President who has already shown he is willing to break the rules by kidnapping a head of state. If Trump ignores the tripwire, he will not only take Greenland, but also expose Article 5 as a bluff and essentially dismantle NATO.
Indeed. Article 5 isn't a guarantee that the US would be involved if, say, Russian tanks were to start touring the Baltic. The EU is opening a can of worms here.
Ho yes, we've seen it. Several times. And it always ended bad. Very bad.
We'seen that in three cases: when there is a dynastic change and the new king have not enough experience nor authority. Or, at the contrary, at the end of a dynasty became totally rotten.
And the last and often the worst, when a mighty and successful head of state become to proud, untill hubris and madness and go to far
Certainly, the tariffs could be lifted. In my opinion, however, that wouldn't improve the situation. The fact is: the threat has been made, and it has been shown how they would act. If the tariffs are overturned by the US Supreme Court, other actions would follow if the situation remains unchanged.
Thanks - another very perceptive analysis
You’d have to ask yourself wtf is going on in the heads of Starmer, Merz and Macron (not to mention Carney who’s promising to invoke Article 5) that they would send a multinational ‘deterrent’ force of 15 troops to Greenland.
What was the message here?
Is there some sort of Cunning Plan in the offing?
If so I wish I knew what it is.
The message was that you cannot take other countries' territories by force.
Such a message would carry weight only if backed by preponderant force, which Europe lacks.
Oh? How else? By persuasion?
Yes, trade, deal, treaty, revolution, collapse. Force never last.
I politely contend with the author’s premise that the EU lacks leverage over Trump. Such a premise might hold in a world driven by rationality, but power relations, not least in politics, often function otherwise. The fact is that the EU has proven itself a master at turning its weakness into an asset, particularly in exploiting Trump. The “lopsided” U.S.–EU trade deal, as a quid pro quo, was more of a strategic win for Ukraine and Co. than for the U.S., for it solidified Trump’s commitment to NATO support for Ukraine, within unstated limits. Now Brussels is using Greenland and tariffs as pressure tools over Trump’s policy reversal on Ukraine (a shift driven in part by false flags and “deep-state” manipulation). Trump’s hands-off approach, by contrast, has given his EU “subordinates” the impression that he values NATO unity on Ukraine above all else, possibly incentivizing their efforts to act as the “tail wagging” Trump’s dog.
Trump could have leveraged U.S. preponderance to extract far more from his European vassals than he has to date, including sanctions on EU banking, along with reduced military-intelligence sharing or other cooperation, for their refusal to back a U.S.–Russia détente, U.S. priorities on drugs and migration, and so on. Trump not only refused to consider any of this, but also promised Ukraine military aid for rare earths in February (this was *before* the blowup with Zelensky, mind you): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT_EmmysebY. [7:45: “With Ukraine and this minerals deal, what does Ukraine get in return, Mr. President?” 7:51 (Trump): “Uh, $350 billion, and lots of equipment, military equipment, and the right to fight on.”] Trump was always torn between sympathy for Ukraine and pragmatism toward Russia, a duality that his “frenemies” took advantage of. And Trump never pushed Europe toward a Ukraine peace.
This likely leads Brussels to conclude that Greenland is one more valve that it can use to force Trump into a “compromise” that further estranges him from Russia and increases NATO entanglement in Ukraine. In this case, somewhat ironically, the EU is playing a bigger role in threatening the end of NATO than Trump is. Its willingness to escalate on Greenland precipitated Trump and his advisers’ murmurings about military force or a “choice” between U.S. and NATO. At any rate, the EU probably calculates that it can exert pressure on Trump through most of his principal advisers, among them Rubio and Hegseth, who have been far more wedded to the conventional U.S./NATO setup than Trump has. Given past history, I expect that the EU will offer a “sweetheart” settlement that will cause Trump to back down, possibly a reconfiguration of the original U.S. plan for Greenland that now accommodates EU policy on Ukraine.
This analysis is based on a continuing policy by the Trump administration, yes Poland is beginning to flex its economic and potential military strength but the reawakening of European Defence production with Germany wishing to retain it present position within the EU will see a New World Order with Europe being the Democratic Powerhouse and the spat regarding Greenland consolidates this movement. The threat from Russia and the disintegration of the USA will make it more likely.
Given that Denmark and EU is giving the US everything it wants in Greenland, this move only makes sense if the US perceives Europe (& Canada) and as a source of insecurity or challenge. To play devil's advocate, if the EU wanted to really pressure the US it could use a lateral strategy like cutting off the European economy from US client states much more integral to US strategies (i.e Turkey, Jordan, Israel) to cause them economic meltdowns that the US would have to backstop. But the EU doesn't have a strategic bone in its corpse.
I think that in a true multi-polar world, alliances can shift much more, and much more quickly than has been the case over the last 80 or so years. So its not unreasonable to want to lock it down.
Also, this is strategically the best time to get Greenland of the last 30 years. Europe is in a de facto war with Russa and has depleted much of its stockpiles of things like artillery. I mean realistically the US will own Greenland in 12 months time, and there won't ever be a shot fired.
Clearly the “rules-based order” — and neoliberalism in general — is now dead in the water. The EU, as accurately predicted by Vicky Nuland in 2014, has been comprehensively “fucked”; all that remains is to deal with the humiliation of watching her “lover” walk out of the door on his way to the next conquest. If the EU had been a sensible geopolitical actor like Russia, rather than a jaded but still hopeful prostitute to the interests of her Atlanticist elites, she would have balanced between different clients. Well, hopefully she will pick herself up and rediscover her dignity at some point.
Nuland never said that. She dismissively referred to the European Union with the phrase “fuck the EU” that leaked phone call you all love to cite as some sort of smoking gun
Only a “smoking gun” in the sense that it revealed the underlying power dynamic, which has been amply manifested ever since.
That's not the smoking gun but.
But regarding the power dynamic, she said, "fuck the EU" in frustration, with EU not complying (or doing enough, or whatever). Kind of refuting your contention.
You've misquoted her, and failed to understand her point.
Would you like a link to the transcript?
I might read the link if you post it, but my point was obviously ironic, not literalistic. Nuland said (literally) “fuck the EU” and the EU is now, as a direct result of her (and its) actions in fomenting the Maidan coup, (ironically) fucked.
I'm sure she will before America does. Talk about lost causes.
" ... why it would provoke Trump into what might soon become a trade war in which its affected NATO allies are doomed to defeat."
How have EU countries "provoked" Trump?
For remind, Poland is on the same path than France and Germany on the Greenland topic.
In its power delusions and Russia hate, it seems that Poland is not followed by Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Bulgaria. Romania will do what France and Germany will order it. Only tiny dumb crazy Balts are on the same way than Poland.
And if Poland goes to far in USA sucking and playing against France and Germany , the answer will be terrible: Poland doesn't exist economically without western Europe.
If we throw out Polish workers, if we relocate our industrial production elsewhere and if we impose custom duties on Polish product, in 5 years, Poland will go back to the shit hole it was before being imposed in UE by USA.
Historically Poland has done very well in different time periods where they had enough peace to develop. Those periods often didn't last very long though, because of their terrible location.
The Polish need to learn from the Swiss and build some proper mountains, if they care about their future.
To be fair, the eu leaders at the time were hardly forced to accept poland.
Wrong my friend. It has been a true blackmail by USA, Clinton first and Bush after him.
You have sign the line of break after that with the US war in Irak.
In putting the eastern beggars in UE , Anglo-Saxons destroyed it definitely.
How would the Americans force poor widdle eu to accept expansion?
We need to acknowledge that the EU and Poland in particular should not take first place in our relations with Russia. If and when we become friends with Russia the EU will symply follow our lead. Trump for the good of the USA & the world become friends with Russia. The 2 most powerful countries in the world becoming friends is an absolute must . .
1 Little side consideration on trade wars: the German and Italian gold reserves are mostly in the US vaults! Easy to get it back now, good luck!
2 The EU and UK/Canada are moving randomly like chickens without heads. But if they had a strategy, apart from mending ties with Russia, they would wake up and signal to the US that a war over Greenland would be a war between nuclear powers. That erases every military balance of powers consideration: the US would win easily and yet it cannot play the risk. Nice fun to nuke Paris and Berlin, but if you get nukes on New York and Chicago in change, is it worth the risk? Stalemate!
In a nuclear war, the weaker side can be believed to actually resort to nukes by desperation, so it does have deterrence. North Korea is the proof.
It doesn't matter who the President is, cause sometimes he will get up and punch an "ally" in the face when he wants something.
More likely, europe will simply sacrifice Greenland in exchange for American re-engagement in the War On Russia.
"War on Russia" - Poor widdle innocent bystander Wussia
No, Europe, as usual, will lay down, ass up.
I suspect that we may be saying the same thing.
I think EU is so dumb, it will give up Novorossiya for Greenland.
I don't actually consider all of the EU to be allies. For one many are woke crazies and globalists. The Brussels gang does not acknowledge that in many more ways the Russians are closer allies, . Well to the quieter half of the USA
Poland should be scared of the US by now. But no. Always sticking with the wrong "partners", in the end, it will be even more severed...
Isn't this article drastically underestimating the EU's importance? Honestly, what if Trump really annex Greenland militarily and the EU, impotent to take it back by force, goes all in against Trump - which ideologically is what they want to do already anyway - and says "ok, let's play this game. Reciprocal tariffs, all US military out of the EU and no more support for any of your operations, and stay the effe out of Gibraltar and the mediterranean too, since even a combo of all of your carriers can't pass the straits without our permission. Meanwhile, restarting trade with Russia and total technological cooperation with China."
There is a huge talk about "daddy US" towards the EU, but the core element that many i think are missing is that the cold war is over and the EU actually DONT need the US's military. For what? The only close by enemy they have is Russia, and it is a self created enemy that would probably be satisfied with some groveling and renewed trade ties with the EU. What kind of end-of-the-world event would happen if the EU, already backed up by Trump into tariffs and now even a militarily confrontation, said "fine, then our alliance is over. Get the hell out of Europe"?
A confrontation with the US would require years of preparation by the EU, even disregarding the presence of the US military in Europe. If Microsoft discontinues its Office 365 service and Amazon its cloud products, the lights will go out in EU administrations and many companies. I also think that "a degree of subservience and resumed trade relations with the EU" will have little impact on Russia. The Russian economy has reoriented itself and now produces much of its own goods. Perhaps in the luxury sector, European products still hold significance for the top 10,000 Russians. Everything else can be imported from the BRICS countries. Due to its decades of subservience to the US, the EU is completely dependent through its interconnectedness. If the EU now wants to break free from the US, it faces a long and difficult journey. With the already simmering unrest caused by economic decline, many Western European countries could experience uncontrolled changes. The EU has put itself in a dead end. Therefore, it will likely follow the US obediently on the Greenland issue as well.
Again, this is underestimating the role of the EU's economy in the world. It's not just luxury clothes and wine - the EU countries provide a lot of high tech products, from farmaceuticals to machinery and financial services. While replacing stuff like microsoft office or amazon servers - which are not exactly high tech products - is relatively trivial, though the adjustment period would be painful. The real pain would be more in military, finance services, right now even GPL - but that's it, the EU imports mainly services from the US, not products, and services CAN be replaced.
Also, the Greenland issue is NOT the kind of issue that can be followed. Here we are talking about robbing a EU country, and a NATO member, of a large and valuable territory. It simply can not be politely managed. Anything else - like providing favoured access to US business in Greenland, or more NATO bases there - could be worked on, but not a direct annexation.
It seems to me that in the Cold War, Europe (or parts of it) tried to triangulate between the US and the USSR. Of course Western Europe wanted to stay a lot closer to the US than fall under USSR control...but playing the kingmaker where they could was a useful leverage point for otherwise powerless countries. It's understandable that they would do so, not a moral judgement, just game theory at the limit.
Now though, things are getting complicated. The US, EU, Russia, and China are now effectively (or expected to soon be) major powers-ish.
My concern is that the Brussels centric EU will try to ally itself more and more with China over time. A huge gray bureaucratic super-state with some sort of social credit system and lots of speech controls seems to fit the bureaucratic preference.
However, then Russia could become the global kingmaker. Or at least Europe's ability to be a kingmaker is eroded and generally defunct.
Trump clearly sees the problem and potential here -- Joining up with Russia strategically, the US would be able to lock the current order in place in very favorable terms for the foreseeable future. (Simps that think Russia and China are natural allies are missing some very significant conflict/competition between them, including a disputed border; same problem with the EU and a Russian alliance -- not happening). This would include essentially the whole of the arctic (Canada is there currently, yes, but the far northern territories could more easily get "donated" than Greenland).
This, to me, explains a lot of the obsessive hatred that the EU has for Russia right now. Their ability to get the US to fight their Russian rival ends if/when they pivot. Trump, to his credit, seems to be trying to force them to show their cards early -- which seems smart.
The Cunning Plan is a classic example of a Tripwire Strategy. Merz and Macron are aware that 15 troops cannot stop the US Marines, so they are using them as human shields. By placing NATO troops in the path of a US acquisition, they are daring Trump to commit geopolitical fratricide by attacking his own allies. They believe the Pentagon and the US Deep State are strong enough to refuse orders to engage German or British troops. This is a high-stakes game of chicken, with Europe betting that the taboo against killing allies is stronger than Trump's will. However, they are making a critical mistake by applying old alliance norms to a President who has already shown he is willing to break the rules by kidnapping a head of state. If Trump ignores the tripwire, he will not only take Greenland, but also expose Article 5 as a bluff and essentially dismantle NATO.
Indeed. Article 5 isn't a guarantee that the US would be involved if, say, Russian tanks were to start touring the Baltic. The EU is opening a can of worms here.
Τragic situation... Never in the history of Europe have been such incompetent leaders.
Ho yes, we've seen it. Several times. And it always ended bad. Very bad.
We'seen that in three cases: when there is a dynastic change and the new king have not enough experience nor authority. Or, at the contrary, at the end of a dynasty became totally rotten.
And the last and often the worst, when a mighty and successful head of state become to proud, untill hubris and madness and go to far
Don't forget that pending Supreme Court decision on Trump's tariffs. They could wipe them all off the books in a day.
Certainly, the tariffs could be lifted. In my opinion, however, that wouldn't improve the situation. The fact is: the threat has been made, and it has been shown how they would act. If the tariffs are overturned by the US Supreme Court, other actions would follow if the situation remains unchanged.