Greenland: Our Collective No

In an interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump spoke with reporters David Sanger and Katie Rogers for hours. At one point, they discussed Greenland. Here is part of that exchange.

“Why is ownership important here?” Sanger asked.

“Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success,” Trump answered. “I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.”

Katie Rogers followed up: “Psychologically important to you or to the United States?”

“Psychologically important for me,” Trump replied. “Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.”

Psychologically important for me.

How bonkers is it that we are on the precipice of global conflict — if not a full-blown world war — and on the edge of serious economic instability — if not a massive trade war or the devaluation of the dollar — because an insecure man who believes himself all-powerful insists that owning Greenland is psychologically important to him?

This is precisely the moment that calls for a Collective No.

A no from Greenland.
A no from Europe.
A no from the U.S. Congress.
A no from world leaders.
A no from the American people.

How can we allow a delusion this inane to generate so much violence, threat, and instability in the world?

It is truly bonkers.

How did we get here? And where else is our Collective No needed?

Of course, there are many answers to the question that people have been asking repeatedly for years, and lots of people have been saying some version of a Collective No for more than a decade. But I’m also asking myself another question, too. Apart from the person currently holding this delusion, how did we invest so much power in a single office that any one individual could credibly put the world in this position?

That also needs our Collective No.

—Renee Roederer