Literally no one is doing that. In fact the answers to the realpolitik question are arguing against it. Did I miss something in the middle there? I am arguing in good faith. I bring up two different scenarios because of the way the people responded to them. It's not about Biden. It's about different yard sticks being used to measure the actions of different presidents while people declare they are being objective. Allow me to rephrase these two situations more circumspectly: - The US president, with no prior warning, unilaterally re-establishes US foreign policy concerning it's defense of a non-treaty nation against the US's biggest military rival on the planet in a moment when that rival is making political and physical threats that it will finally do what it's been claiming it would do since the 50's and retain Taiwan. All while China's president Xi is known to respond very poorly to threats that may make him appear to lose face. Moreover this is all happening at a moment when that nation is military very active and the USA has finally completely it's withdrawal from Afghanistan and is decidedly not ready for military action in that venue yet has military forces in and around the area and has for a very long time. - The US president makes brazen claims about wanting to have control over a semi-autonomous allied country/landmass that belongs to another allied country who has already set the precedent of selling the US land in the Atlantic/Caribbean. All while the US has no real reason to threaten this because Denmark has historically been very amiable and arguably one of the US's most steady allies, even going so far as to pay for infrastructure changes that the US requests. This blustery idiotic exchanges is set in a military environment where the neither country has much military footprint involved, and the US has neither the political, military, or legal justification or capacity to invade/occupy Greenland. Both are poor situations. I'm not addressing the follow-up on either situation. We do not need NATO. We have a vested interest in a peaceful Asia. Which is worse for the USA? My personal analysis is that people are putting the current exchange about Greenland on the top tier of existential problems while they simultaneously downplayed an event that literally could have led to a conventional exchange of arms over the Taiwan straits. To me, Taiwan was us poking a bully nation that was/is looking for any excuse to respond. Greenland in political theater the likes of which almost every president has conducted and amounts to siblings fighting with no real threat of actions. More to it, this is Trump's MO, and has been for his whole political life. I was in a NATO staff when he threatened to pull the US out if the allies didn't pay what they said they would. It was a bluff and everyone knew it. All the nations in that stuff literally laughed about it. Most countries didn't pay and the US is still in NATO. This is how Trump operates. I disagree with it. I think it's detrimental to his purposed. I think it's not how nations should interact, but I can't change it. I can just recognize what it is and what it isn't. We're not going to invade Greenland, so maybe people should stop acting like it's the end of the world that the USA is finally acting like a superpower again and demanding to be treated as such. (sidebar, i'll be curious to know what's happening in the background right now that no-one is paying attention to because of the Greenland noise...that's ALSO Trump's MO)