[mindslight]

From the very quote you pasted:

>> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland

So the problem seems to be your reading comprehension. It seems like you're focusing on the things you want to hear from this double-talking conman, while forgetting all of the things he's said that you don't want to have heard.

(and preemptively, I don't want to hear some rationalization how declining to repudiate something is technically different than endorsing it. A statesman should project stability by reaffirming shared values, this addled buffoon does the exact opposite)

[paulsutter]

I agree that Trump is a terrible statesman! Also a buffoon, cad, lout, charlatan, and swindler.

But apparently he never threatened to invade Greenland (assuming thats the best evidence you have)

I'm a member of the grey tribe, and very disappointed with "both" factions right now.

[mindslight]

Well it's just the evidence you yourself brought. If you're looking to get to the truth of the matter, it's odd to reject the possibility of something that is directly referenced in what you're quoting, no? That is why I responded somewhat harshly - it feels like highly motivated reasoning.

But for trying to find the truth of the matter:

> earlier had declined to rule out using the military

That's a concrete, verifiable claim. It could certainly be false! But I don't see a reason to assume it is false, and so I would ask what is your reason for simply assuming it is false?

A few minutes of digging, and I came up with this:

> Asked if he would use force to seize Greenland, the president said, “No comment,” in a brief telephone interview with NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...

Unfortunately this is vague as well on what exactly was asked. It sure would be nice to see a transcript of that phone call! But I'd say that quote does tighten the bound of mischaracterization, in that it would have to be gross misrepresentation on the part of NBC news to have the thrust of that statement be incorrect. Such a statement is also completely in line with other maximalist quotes I found while digging.

> I'm a member of the grey tribe, and very disappointed with "both" factions right now.

Since we're talking about where we're coming from: I'm a libertarian who had never voted for a major party candidate in a national election until 2020, when I voted actually-conservative aka Democrat. I'm certainly disappointed in sensationalist blue media, prevailing blue groupthink, and most certainly disappointed in the "solutions" championed by the Democratic party. But I also don't see that there is any middle ground to be had - we're up against the law of excluded middle with supporting Trumpism (radical reactionary populism) or not. So while I've been staunchly against the status quo bureaucratic authoritarianism basically my whole life, I'm certainly not eager to throw it away in favor of autocratic authoritarianism.

[paulsutter]

Yes, he definitely refused to rule out use of military force!

But that really and truly is not a threat to use military force.

Consider the following hypothetical:

- * IF * the questioner had followed up with, "Are you threatening to use military force?" and

- * IF * Trump answered "of course not"....

Would that be a contradiction? Not at all! Because his first statement wasn't a threat.

This is literally strategic ambiguity combined with bad statesmanship. But if you look up any and every time he has been asked whether he would rule out the use of military force, I would expect that in every case he declined to rule it out. Of course he's a buffoon, so he might not have adhered to that correctly.

[mindslight]

This is exactly the kind of sophistry I addressed in the postscript to my first comment:

> preemptively, I don't want to hear some rationalization how declining to repudiate something is technically different than endorsing it. A statesman should project stability by reaffirming shared values, this addled buffoon does the exact opposite

When the topic is the use of military force against allies, it is a leader's job to unequivocally reaffirm the partnership. Trump's non-denial is not some technically-correct "strategic ambiguity". Rather it is an implicit threat that military force may be used against an ally. The reactions to that threat were entirely justified.

[paulsutter]

It’s not a threat, and yes it’s atrocious statesmanship.

Did he hint at the use of the military? YES

Was that offensive on both sides of the atlantic, inside and outside of diplomatic circles? YES

Did he actually threaten to use the military? NO

Neither his poor statesmanship nor his lack of character change the meaning of the words, I can’t understand why you keep bringing that in.

[mindslight]

Because, as I said, it is an implicit threat. Especially with the context of everything else he said. For example:

As quoted by The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/19/donald-trump...

> "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace," he wrote

As quoted by NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/world/americas/trump-gree...

> I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way

This all adds up to a straightforward threat to use military force. You are essentially acknowledging this, but characterizing it as "strategic ambiguity". What is the point of this "ambiguity" if not to carry the implicit threat?