I have been quieter for a few days, not because I had nothing to say, but because everything I wrote started to feel like a variation on the same theme. Different headlines, same mechanics. At some point, you stop reacting to each new development and start paying attention to the pattern underneath it.
Every day, a new place name is thrown into the churn. Greenland, Venezuela, China, immigration raids and trade threats. It all sounds disconnected until you stop treating it that way. The justification changes constantly, but the logic remains the same.
Earlier today, I listened to an interview with Carla Sands, a former U.S. ambassador to Denmark during Trump’s first term. I did not know much about her, so I looked her up. During the first Trump administration, she served as the U.S. ambassador to Denmark. A former chiropractor, socialite, and actress who married into wealth. No geopolitical background but all the skills of a Trump sycophant.
According to her, Greenland wants U.S investment. If it does not come from the United States, she said, it will come from China. As though those are the only two options available. As though the people who actually live there are incapable of choosing their own partners or charting their own futures.
When challenged about Greenlanders and Danes repeatedly saying they do not want U.S. control, the language shifted to protection and security, which can only be provided by the United States. Protection language shows up reliably when money and resources are involved.
Greenland is strategically important, yes. But it is also resource-rich, and much of what is there is currently inconveniently locked under ice. Ice that some people seem perfectly comfortable treating as a temporary obstacle. When venture capital voices talk about what people want, it is worth remembering that investment is rarely neutral.
None of this is new. Venezuela was never really about drugs. It was always about oil. The drug narrative simply faded when it stopped being useful. The same cycle repeats. The reason changes. The country changes. The prize stays the same.
What has changed is the extent to which these ambitions are openly disconnected from public support. Roughly 75% of U.S. citizens oppose any attempt to take or involve Greenland. That is not a close call. That is a broad rejection. At the same time, Donald Trump’s approval ratings are weak on the very issues he ran on. Immigration, cost of living, and international relations. When leaders lose public confidence, they rarely respond with restraint. They will escalate, increase distraction and look outward.
This is where Canada comes back into the picture. Another notable read today was an article by journalist Terry Moran titled The World Is Learning How to Live Without America. Moran spent years at ABC News before leaving. I might note that the departure was part of the new government-controlled media, but that’s another story for another day. The question he posed is the one that matters.
“If you were running a country or a global corporation, would you bet the future of your people or your firm on the stability, reliability, and sanity of the United States of America in the coming years?”
That question explains a great deal of what we are seeing.
Countries are not being dramatic. They are managing risk. European nations are reassessing supply chains. Germany is looking inward on defense manufacturing. Asian economies are hedging. Mexico is recalibrating. There is a quiet, methodical process underway that has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with reliability.
And the example he used was Canada and the work of our Prime Minister. Our PM has been clear about this, even if the significance of it has not fully landed yet. We can no longer think only north south. We have to think east west. Europe, Asia, diversification and stability. This is risk management in a world where unpredictability has become a feature, not a bug.
This is not anti U.S. sentiment. It is simply being realistic.
The post World War II order worked because the United States was powerful and cooperative. It underwrote institutions and valued alliances. It was predictable enough that others could plan around it. That era is ending, and not because the world suddenly changed its values, but because the risk profile changed.
When even the people of the U.S. themselves are rejecting expansionist ideas like Greenland, when independents are walking away, when allies are quietly recalculating, the signal is clear. This is not about one headline or one country. It is about trust. And for many people the United States has lost their trust. Consider me one of those people.
Canada is not stepping away from the world. We are paying attention to it. And that is something worth noticing.
And so we don’t forget…
WHERE ARE HELL ARE THE EPSTEIN FILES??
Nancy's Notes 