Elizabeth Lane: Should Trump take Greenland?

I came across Elizabeth Lane being interviewed about American propaganda by Tucker and did some research on her. 

She is a Georgian-American actress who admires Vladimir Putin. Her boyfriend or former boyfriend or close friend is in the FSB. 

But being an admirer of Vladimir Putin doesn't mean what she says should be dismissed.

This post on X today makes good sense but the reason why I post it is because it made me see that the Cold War served US interests by scaring Europe into obeying Washington. I worked out at the time that it was unnecessary because Russia and America were in the 19th century parlance satisfied powers. 

Today fear of Russia makes Europe obey the USA a much more murderous country than Russia, one that has invaded far more countries than Hitler's Germany. 

I’ll say it clearly: I don’t just tolerate Trump’s aggressive manhandle of Europe I support it. And yes, that includes Greenland. Not because it’s morally pure or diplomatically elegant, but because Europe spent decades building the conditions that made this outcome inevitable.

For most of the post–World War II era, western Europe didn’t merely align with the United States, it voluntarily surrendered large parts of its sovereignty. Germany is the clearest example. Its intelligence services were not organically rebuilt after the war they were constructed under direct CIA supervision. 

 

The Bundesnachrichtendienst grew out of the Gehlen organization, run by a former Nazi intelligence chief and folded straight into the American intelligence apparatus. This isn’t conspiracy, it’s documented history in mainstream books and declassified records. Western Europe’s security architecture was never independent. NATO, the CIA, and British intelligence formed a system in which Europe relied on the U.S. not just for defense, but for strategic direction in politics, intelligence filtering, and political boundaries.

This is why Western European leaders are almost never overthrown. Regime change is unnecessary when leadership is already yours, vetted, and brainwashed. Eastern Europe saw upheavals precisely because it wasn’t fully integrated into this system. To maintain this arrangement with western European, the American intelligence and military-industrial complex sold Europe a permanent fear narrative: Russia!

 

The claim that Russia posed an existential threat to Western Europe was exaggerated to the point of fiction. In reality, Russia was Europe’s most logical strategic partner. It provided cheap energy, raw materials, and geographic stability everything an industrial continent needs to thrive. Germany’s economic dominance was built largely on this partnership. But fear works better than facts. Enormous resources were poured into shaping public opinion, media narratives, and political discourse to ensure hostility toward Russia remained constant.

Germany and Italy barely needed convincing. Their historical baggage (Nazism) made anti-Eastern sentiment easy to activate. France followed through a different route, a cultivated paranoia around “strategic autonomy” that always mysteriously ended with deeper NATO dependence.

The result was the same, Europe tied itself tighter to American security whilesurrendering economic and strategic leverage. The irony is brutal. Europe paid for its protection twice: once by funding its own militaries to NATO standards which was not cheap, and again by accepting debt, austerity, and economic constraints that hollowed out its sovereignty. All while being told that without U.S. protection, Russia would roll tanks into Paris. That was never true and still isn’t.

Trump disrupted this arrangement not out of ideology, but self-interest. He asked the one question no U.S. president before him dared to ask out loud: Why is America paying for Europe’s security when it doesn’t benefit American citizens? It made no sense. He was right. The American deep state cared deeply about Europe, not because Europe mattered to Americans, but because Europe mattered to global control. The intelligence-banking-military complex doesn’t operate on national loyalty, it operates on power. Nations are tools, not beneficiaries. Global control is the goal.

Trump rejected that logic.His view is blunt,transactional, and unapologetic: if an alliance doesn’t benefit the U.S., it’s worthless. Fund your own defense. Secure your own borders. Counter China. Protect American interests first (Fine fine Israeli interest first and American interest right after) :)) . Is he elegant? No. Is he efficient? Sometimes not. But he is the first president in decades to seriously challenge the global architecture that prioritized control over national interest.

That left Europe exposed and lost. European leaders suddenly realized they had alienated Russia to their own detriment, their most natural partner, while depending entirely on a patron that no longer felt obligated to protect them. And of course the Nord Stream sabotage was a huge blow. Europe’s largest economy was crippled overnight. No accountability. No investigation that mattered. No consequences. Germany was deindustrialized in real time, sacrificing its future for a geopolitical game it didn’t control. The same forces that sold Europe the Russia threat proceeded to destroy Europe’s economic backbone.

Now to Greenland, where Europe’s hypocrisy finally collapses under its own weight. For years, Denmark and allied intelligence services quietly admitted that Russia had no strategic interest in Greenland. Behind closed doors, this was well understood. Publicly, however, the opposite narrative was pushed, especially during the Ukraine war. Media outlets and officials floated claims that Russia was eyeing Greenland, despite lacking evidence or strategic incentive. The goal was simple, reinforce the Arctic fear narrative. That propaganda worked until it backfired.

Now Trump looks at the Arctic and says: if this region matters strategically, why shouldn’t the United States secure its interests directly? Suddenly Denmark is outraged. Europe is shocked. But this is the world Europe helped create. You can’t spend decades inflating security threats, lying, inviting foreign control, and surrendering sovereignty, then cry foul when something is being down about it and power is exercised against you.

Is taking Greenland right? morally, no. Strategically? entirely consistent with the system Europe enabled.If Europe had maintained real sovereignty, balanced relations with Russia, and independent security structures, this wouldn’t even be a discussion. Europe would have been strong and thriving.

Now Europe stands alone, rightfully so, too egoistic to reconcile with Russia, abandoned by the United States, and still refusing to admit what it did to itself. Instead, it blames Putin for Trump wanting Greenland. That level of denial borders on political psychosis. Macron, Berlin’s leadership, and Brussels elites are not confused, they’re intellectually bankrupt. They destroyed their countries and still demand applause. Unbelievable. Macron thinks he has an idea, looking at China maybe the other daddy can save them. So pathetic.

So should Trump take Greenland? If we’re playing by the rules Europe accepted for 70 years, when they surrounded control to American deep state then, absolutely! You don’t get to build a system based on power politics and then complain when power finally turns in your direction.