with that in mind, i want to draw attention to trump's recent focus on controlling shipping lanes through panama and greenland. people that read geopolitics shouldn't find this that confusing at all, but the mainstream media is completely confused about it and needs some guidance.
i drew some attention to the monroe doctrine in the context of trump's tendency to tell foreign powers he's not interested in what happens in their spheres of influence. while the united states has far more influence in venezuela than is acknowledged, it is nonetheless the case that, if you want to exchange ukraine for venezuela, that's a good deal from america's perspective. what trump is clearly misunderstanding is that, twenty years ago, the united states would hardly be making deals with the russians over regions in the western hemisphere, and that the idea of making a deal to assert control over a region in the western hemisphere is actually an abrogation of the doctrine, which says that any interference is an act of war. monroe is not about making deals with the europeans, it's about drawing a line in the sand and saying "you stay the fuck out". worse, when america was the hegemon, it could tell the russians to stay the fuck out of venezuela and start a war in ukraine, and there wouldn't be any discussion of deals made, because it was the hegemon and it didn't make deals, it made orders. a hegemon doesn't make deals or trade things, it makes demands and orders things. clinton would have never made a deal with the lowly russians or chinese; it would have been beneath america's standing as the hegemon. a request to make a deal with your enemies is a statement of weakness and in some ways a plea for mercy. strong powers don't make deals with their enemies. as such, the horsetrading actually represents a decline of american power, not an assertion of it, and i don't think trump understands that.
that aside, and i think i'm adding too much theory to trump's thought process but basically getting it right (he's not trying to enforce monroe, if he even knows monroe, he's just thinking in terms of spheres of influence, so that an analysis by mersheimer is probably more appropriate), the question of controlling shipping lanes is actually foundational to the developing world war with the chinese as america's primary enemy. this isn't a weird set of priorities at all; this is exactly what essentially all of the conflicts that exist right now are actually about.
during the obama administration, they talked about a "pivot" to china, which has evolved into the "quad" under biden and is essentially a chinese containment policy (in the literature, you're never allowed to call the chinese containment policy a chinese containment policy and that goes back decades. excruciating double think is normal in sino-american relations.). the chinese containment policy is largely about trying to use the indians to create a choke point in the malacca strait, which they've been resistant in doing. so, the united states has tried to sell nuclear subs to the australians to get them to do it instead, and has been pushing for japanese rearmament to spook the chinese into submission in the north. this is all about controlling this extremely strategic waterway in indonesia and malaysia.
there's currently an armed group at the bottom of the arabian peninsula that is shooting at western ships transiting back and forth through the suez canal. our media calls this group "houthi rebels" and claims they are an "iranian proxy", but they have access to hypersonic weapons, which belies that narrative. this appears to in truth be a chinese military base, and the chinese are in truth apparently trying to take control of the suez canal. the official chinese presence in the region is in africa in a small country carved out of ethiopia called djibouti, but they seem to be getting very advanced weapons to the rebels very easily, who are then using them to harass american shipping and lob missiles into israel. the chinese are apparently expecting to eventually take control of israel via an arab proxy, but they don't appear to have thought it through carefully, as that will never work. the point is that all of this mess isn't about gaza or palestine or syria or iran, it's about china taking control of the suez canal.
further, there's a reason that putin seized control of crimea first. ukraine is a relatively large and diverse country with a lot of assets, including large nuclear power plants and a substantive industrial heartland. what did putin prioritize first? the naval base in sevastopol, which is what the americans were trying to take control of. this ties into control of the dardanelles, which has been a major point of conflict since the end of the second world war (which lingered on in greece, as churchill and stalin fought a proxy war to try to control these shipping routes). russia's war aims have long included access to a warm water deep sea port, and the black sea remains the closest thing they've got, even as they're boxed in by the turks (and the greeks). ukraine is complicated, but frustrating russian shipping is a big component of what it has been about since 2014.
that's what a lot of the conflict currently going is actually about, controlling shipping lanes. let's remember that this is what the first two world wars were actually about as well - controlling shipping lanes, and access to resources in africa and southeast asia.
in context, the united states should be exerting control over the panama canal as that is a choke point that is within it's sphere of influence and the panamanians will just have to fucking deal with it. further, exerting control over the north atlantic (although, i think trump should be focusing more on iceland than greenland, as greenland as actually a little out of the way) is going to be extremely important in any developing conflict over shipping in the region. i mentioned previously that the united states invaded greenland and iceland in world war two. they also invaded newfoundland, and it was the american invasion of then british newfoundland that led to it becoming a part of canada. the british invaded norway, but they had to abandon it essentially immediately, and the germans had a huge occupation force in the country. conflict over control of norway was a major part of world war two that's largely not talked about, but it was one of the most important parts of the war. at the time, there were german uboats stalking the north atlantic, which might not be the concern today (there are russian nuclear subs sailing through the region, but they're not harassing trade. yet). in the long run, as the ice melts and a northwest passage opens up, whoever controls the north atlantic is going to control a huge amount of global trade. trump is right to try to get in before that happens.
does that mean trump is implicitly accepting the truth of climate change? well, nobody thinks trump actually believes that climate change is a chinese hoax, which is clearly absurd, although that is in some way a brilliant tactic to get out of having to answer questions about the topic at a republican fundraiser or primary debate. trump clearly believes that climate change is real, he just doesn't want to stop it. if elon musk can do one fucking useful thing shadowing trump, i'd like it to be to sit trump down and get a coherent fucking answer from him on climate change (in a closed door meeting, without having to be concerned about winning republican voters) and a dedication to a coherent fucking policy. what does trump imagine is going to happen to his florida hideout in ten-twenty years? did he see what happened to the region this year?
so, we'll have to see what trump actually does, but signalling a focus on shipping lanes indicates that he's actually thinking strategically. this isn't random, wacky shit. whomever is helping him do that should keep it up.