Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief, reaffirmed his belief that the U.S. will win any battle of diplomatic will and military power, whether it be between Denmark or the Trump administration. He made this clear in an interview with CNN on Monday.

Miller stated that "we live in a World...that is governed...by force, by power," making it clear that America is too powerful, and Europe is too weak, to resist anything the U.S. may want. "These have been the laws of the universe since the dawn of time."

History may be a struggle between the strong and the weak, but adopting such rhetoric marks a significant shift in the approach adopted by each U.S. Administration since the 1930s.

Previous U.S. Presidents, while their actions may have sometimes fallen short of expectations, have always at least paid lip service to some type of international law or structure.

The second Bush administration, even as it sought to bypass the United Nations in 2003 for the invasion of 'Iraq', portrayed that?country? as a rogue nation that needed to be reined in for global good.

In a sense, the current administration's rhetoric was similar in its air strikes against Iran's nuclear program. The U.S.'s recent actions against Venezuela and Greenland appear to have rejected such framing, in favor of something simpler.

It could be a mistake the U.S. regrets.

The recent actions in Iran and Venezuela served as a reminder that the U.S. Military retains an edge when it comes down to piercing foreign air defences, for sophisticated one-off attacks on national leaders.

This will not go unnoticed by either Moscow or Beijing. Pentagon officials are concerned that Russia and China may have the upper hand in a war lasting several months or even years. The former's economy is now set up for permanent conflict after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, while China has also been preparing its industries for extended conflict.

It is becoming increasingly likely, even without this, that the first half of the 2020s will see a heightened level of confrontation. The second half of that decade could bring them to the brink.

Officials in the United States, notably Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say that administration actions have so far been intended to "restore U.S. Deterrence", but not everyone believes that it is working.

What concerns U.S. Allies the most, especially after the recent days and weeks is that President Donald Trump's new aggressive priority of securing Western Hemisphere could be seen as giving the green light to Moscow or Beijing to act in a similar manner within their immediate vicinity.

There are many concerns about future U.S. administrations becoming even more geographically isolated, as China and Russia become more aggressive.

It is a fact that there is a growing consensus amongst leaders of the military and government that showing weakness could be fatal.

It took just a few hours for commandos to board and seize the ship when a ship from Russia was suspected, shortly before New Year's Day, of being the culprit of the first and last undersea cable severance in the Baltic Sea in 2025.

Three U.S. conventional nuclear missile submarines appeared simultaneously on the other side of the globe, causing what seemed to be a deliberate display of U.S. force.

The public's reaction to Russia's announcement of the deployment of the Oreshnik medium range ballistic missile system, which can strike London and other European Cities with conventional and nuclear warheads within 10 minutes, was not as immediate.

News flow has been relentless since then, and it appears that this is a deliberate White House policy, at least in the short-term.

INCREASING GLOBAL MILITARY ASSERTIVENESS

The European nations are trying to demonstrate their strength to Washington and Moscow simultaneously. They also have to deal with what can at worst feel like cognitive overwhelm.

While the White House made threatening remarks over Greenland in Paris, U.S. officials met with European leaders and appeared to finally offer a limited U.S. commitment to "backstop", any European troops in Ukraine deployed as peace guaranteeers with U.S. Military action if attacked.

After the U.S. seize of two Russian flagged tankers in the Atlantic and one in the Caribbean on Wednesday, it seems that more Kremlin bluster is likely. Both vessels were accused of violating U.S. sanctions aimed at Venezuelan oil exports.

These displays of force are not limited to the larger nations. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are two of the most obvious examples. Their proxy forces, which were once allies, have been fighting in Yemen since December. Saudi Arabia's army intensified its action last week by air strikes against UAE-supplied vehicles in Yemeni capital.

Despite their obvious rivalry for regional influence, and despite their irritation towards each other, it seems that the UAE and Saudi Arabia have little appetite for a prolonged military conflict.

The Saudi attack looked like a smaller version of the limited military exchanges that took place last year, such as the 10-day missile exchange between Israel and Iran and the "four-day battle" between Pakistan and India.

Both engagements occurred against the backdrop of long-running tensions. In the case of Israel, these tensions were exacerbated by bloody conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. Every exchange did, however, do a small amount to disrupt the international rules - just as Israel did with its airstrike into Qatar in order to target Hamas leaders.

Some people who order such actions want to "escalate in order to de-escalate", inflicting some pain in the short term to force a foe to either return to negotiations or simply inaction.

It seemed that the airstrikes on Iran ordered by Trump in June were not only intended to cause catastrophic damage to the existing nuclear program, but also to deter Tehran from deciding to rebuild its uranium enrichment capability. Pentagon officials explained this was done to prevent Tehran from re-building its uranium enrichment capacity.

Uncertainty Spectacular

JD Vance, the Vice President of the United States, said at a fundraiser a few days after that it was?very, very different from the "forever wars", which seemed to last forever during the Bush and Obama administrations.

"Number One: You articulate a clearly American interest," said he, adding that in this case, the U.S.'red line' was that Tehran couldn't be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

"Number 2, you try to aggressively solve this problem diplomatically. Number three is to use overwhelming military force if you are unable to resolve the problem diplomatically. Then you need get out before it becomes a prolonged conflict.

It is a great deal unclear whether the U.S. really intends to "get out of Venezuela" now.

After the initial raid that captured President Nicolas Maduro there were no U.S. troops left. The plan appears to be to persuade Venezuela's remaining government to accept American demands, or else face further action.

The comments made by U.S. official this week indicate that they think they can persuade the Venezuelan leaders to follow U.S. orders. But only time will tell if it is true.

The U.S.'s threats against Greenland this week appear to be a tactic used in part to influence negotiations with the Danish Government.

Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, said on Wednesday that Trump had always intended to "buy Greenland".

It is unclear whether the U.S. military's suggestion to invade Greenland will help or hinder this.

There is talk in Europe of placing "tripwire" troops in Greenland - detachments similar to NATO's Enhanced Forward presence forces in Eastern Europe - to at least offer the prospect of a military resistance against any U.S. attempts to unilaterally takeover the autonomous Danish territory.

It is not clear whether the conflict over Venezuela will ever be over. Meanwhile, in the Gulf, the death toll reported from the Iranian crackdown against rising street protests is continuing to rise despite Trump's warnings that he may respond with military strikes.

Like the Iraq and Afghan Wars, the war in Ukraine is a brutal reminder that an action like Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” can turn into a bloody, attritional war.

The year 2026 has been around for less than ten days and a more frenetic geopolitical environment is now likely.

It is still not possible to tell if this will alter the larger picture, destabilise crises that are already chaotic or counterintuitively lead to a return of a little more stability.

(source: Reuters)