to content about sexuality and sexual matters. i'm liza model that and i'm going to be exploring all, listen more in a few things in math test available on all platforms. the donald trump is headed back to the white house and already it appears. it won't be business as usual for us foreign policy. well, well, america 1st mean for the girls. some hope donald trump will succeed where his predecessor failed to find lasting peace in ukraine and the middle east. by translators, comments about annex in greenland and canada. i've cast down on the united states reliability as an allied. what's behind the trunk of parents, expansionist ambitions? today we'll look at whether foreign policy under trump quotes mean a new era of land grabs by the most powerful, the

hello and welcome to to the points. i'm clear. richardson in berlin, and i'm thrilled to introduce our panels today. we have thorsten banner, the co founder and director of the global public policy institute in berlin, moore. it's got me on a foreign correspondent for the german weekly magazine sch down. and american journalist melinda crane. you probably know her as a regular face. you're onto the warm welcome at tea. well 1st and let's get started with you is a trump presidency, potentially a turning point in the way we see the united states on the world stage? i think it is. and i think now we can be sure that this vision as the us as the self appointed guardian of the global liberal international order that's over the market. rubio said as much and his confirmation hearings and this time to,

to yesterday and we're in for a wild ride with america 1st and as europeans, i think we need to get our prior to straight. i don't think it's the expansion isn't no annex in greenland and canada, that should be top of our mind. i think it should be top of our minds to make sure we don't get to know that ukraine and europe doesn't get thrown under the bus. and the deal with puts in and that we find some sort of common ground on trade in economics. so that we're going to end up in a, in a tower for with us. and more it's how do you think those wishes fit into what trump actually has planned? is it going to be of greenland and canada, or might he address some of the things that are some pointed out? i think for trump, the priority is the what's good for america, what, what are low hanging fruits? and i think the biggest danger is that in certain problems like

ukraine, he will see that is, it is difficult to solve. he will get bored and turned away. that is, i think the biggest danger in this, in the upcoming presidency. and the lender, this is of course not the 1st time that donald trump is president of the united states. are there any clues that we could take from his 1st presidency as to what we might expect over the next 4 years? lots of close tests and said, get ready for a wild ride. so turbulence volatility, definitely likely. that's because trump is sort of a short term attention focus. so look at one particular topic and he'll jump in big . he'll have some, it's uh, and then he turns away and does something else. so that's one point. another one is transaction ality. he is his unique selling point, the trump brand is deal making. he sees himself as a deal maker and we don't have to look back to the 1st term. we can look at what

happened yesterday with the middle east steel. he was the one who announced it 1st . he talks to said, you know, this is all my doing. this deal only happened this epic deal only happened because of the pressure that i put. and it's just gonna be the lead in too many more wonderful things. but he's also a deal breaker. remember that in his 1st term, he took the us out of the power climate agreement, out of the iran agreement that had kept the lid on iran's nuclear ambitions. he basically looked for what will, what is to america's interest. in his view, those 2 treaties i feel were in the us interest, but he took the us out of them because that's not where he wanted to go. so expect deal making to deal breaking down those really were seismic changes in u. s. foreign policy as well. it's saying that most americans who did vote for trump, they were looking at domestic issues as the biggest factors and their decisions. but the rest of the world is going to be watching his foreign policy with great

interest. and in that regard, donald trump has already caused a stir, as there is no overlooking these guest don't junior. donald trump's eldest son recently made what he called a personal trip to greenland. once a danish colony, greenland is now a self governing territory of denmark. the island is strategically important and rich and natural resources. could it soon be american territory? this is exactly what the president elect announced during his son's visit. thanks so much. people really don't even know if denmark has any legal rights to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security. that's for the free world. when oscar trump didn't completely rule out the use of military force to achieve his geo political goals, he has also expressed a desire to bring the economically and strategically important panama canal backgrounds of american authority. and he wants to rename the gulf of mexico,

the gulf of america. but that's not all his dreams of expansion extend even further . trump announced his intention for canada to become the 51st dates of the united states, canada and the united states. that would really be something you get rid of that artificially drawn line. and you take a look at what that looks like. and it would also be much better for national security. the plans have stopped international outrage. how on predictable will donald trump 2nd term be? so let's try to answer that question with a bit more depth now. uh, belinda. you purchased their canada in greenland in the new u. s. president. are the soon to be us present president sites. how realistic or plausible is it that he'll actually make good on these threats? you know, it, trump is all about bluster and bravado, and it's actually a dilemma for us in the media. because we give him so much attention for his

a religious uh, claims that he makes. and that was a press conference. you know, he's just throwing some ideas out there and seeing what happens. and that's a trademark for him as well. because he sees himself as a deal maker. he thinks we, you know, just put in my maximum maxima claim and see if i get better terms for some stuff. he sometimes, uh, some, some observers say he's operating according to the mad mount theory of international politics, which is what richard nixon like to do. but nixon was a very c, a radical strategic person. trump. he operates on the basis of instinct. this is just who he is. so what does he want? maybe he wants nice deals with greenland on critical minerals because that is going to be crucial as green energy wraps up. maybe he'd like to pay less for the base that the us house on greenland. maybe he'd like to get canada to pay more for joint defense. maybe he'd like to get canada do more to stop immigration or stop the flow

of fentanyl from china. and maybe he'd like panama to give us carriers cheaper rates. actually, is he going to use military force to do any of those things? i would pretty much lay my hand and fire that he will not do that, but it's part of his deal making on one thing we can learn from this. he's not only transactional, it's all about power. these are, these are allies, neighbors of the us that he is putting under heavy pressure just the way he would rivals. so he makes no distinction between the 2 because he doesn't really set much store by treaties and such. he wants power politics and he's taking us back to the 19th century and the monroe doctrine of sphere of influence. this is the us sphere of influence in north and south america, and they are going to decide what happens there. thorsten tell us a little bit more of the about crumbs interest in greenland, even if he has is as a window size, just throwing something against the wall. seeing if it's fixed, it's not the 1st time he's expressed interest in the world's biggest island. is

that what do you think is behind it? well, i'm not in. tom smiled. what animates him, whether he just wants to get a good deal and go into history as the president that further increased the us territory. i don't know, but what i do know is the real strategic issues in the arctic and as your opinions, 1st of all, be sure to ask reading on those what they want to do after all denmark calling us to, to and so we should, you know, if they want to exercise their right to self determination. they should do so and the as europeans, i think we have every interest in good cooperation with the united states on architect security after all russia and trying to have quite a bit of miss chief in store. there and the so it's not for no reason that the us gigi community worries about reading and they don't necessarily want to annex it. but they want to make sure that to us security gets, you know, gets a fair hearing. and just, i'm curious,

do we know how green people from greenland a think about this, as you've said their history as part of the kingdom of denmark, has been a fraught one at times in the crime, allows them. but the eventually that to i think we don't do enough just as to what actually greenland is want and what the history is. and also the very checkered history of denmark, they're forced sterilization and, and all that it's, it's not an easy history and i think they've been promised self determination. they want to exercise this and maybe they should just bargain for the best deal with, you know, they can uh for that they can, they can get but for sure. i think it's of course, right to rule out its force and to go against that. but i just think what trump does with put in will be of much more consequence than whatever his dreaming is about to then more about greenland and kind of dar, i do want to come back to that in just a moment. but yeah,

more it's perhaps your thoughts and wishes. yeah, i mean the, one of the, the biggest dangers, of course, is that the, the perception of the us itself will change dramatically after trump will become president the next week is because it will be quite hard to tell the difference between someone like letting me have food jim and donald trump and the behavior of these powers. if trump is behaving like a bully, the them, the us is no more benign hedge, a mom and no more police man of the world of the rule based world order. but it will behave like a bully and um, that will, i think the harm, the, the perception of a, of the us and it will make the whole world a much more bullet's file. well, that's really the question, right? why go this route if this kind, if this is going to embolden strong men like she like food in,

but that's how trump sees the world. yeah, g, g, a myers trump. he's not as to what the big, the if the strong man likes these guys who uh who, who, who do deals. and uh, he's also have nice things to say about using paying. and he did asked in the past and he did ask him to attend his inauguration. he has a huge admiration for strong man. and he said not too long ago that you know, letting me put in, i kind of understand the guy, nato was riding his door steps a. so this fear of interest thinking is exactly what vitamin put in a is, is a, subscribes to when he wants to take ukraine. and that is not alien thinking for donald trump. therefore, when we look to what he's likely to do in a potential ukraine, russian deal,

we will not see him taking into consideration the principle that is most important for europeans. namely. so the rule of law, the fact that the un charter for bids a military attack on another country. and here's material integrity, we put a random rough shod over that article of the un charter and trump. she won't have much interest in that. she will not attempt to extract any kind of cost to put in for essentially undermining the international uh, rules rules based order. yeah. and course then do you agree? this seems like a huge departure from what the united states in the 20th and 21st century is said, was its priority. things like standing up for small countries sovereignty to well, some countries would also disagree if the rocky and, and so on. but let's not get into the operative word without the word i was given

to that. i think it's, it's important that trump actually is, it's a departure from this role mean for us as europeans, is important to note that the, you know, the certainty that the us will always be there for us. and guarantee for our security that's over. we're in the middle of a war in, on european soil. that should be our focus right now. what is our reaction to that? and that means we can be certain, all we need to provide for our own security much more effectively as europeans, we need to stand on our own feet. also if there's a deal on ukraine, uh then we need to kind of be a, be willing to pay for it. and also if necessary, cooperate militarily on, on, on this. and that should be top of mind include, and also to avoid this trade war. what i talked about before and to greenland, and all of that,

that will come and we can deal with it. but ukraine put in and to also dealing with this, a lines of china and russia underwriting, this expansion isn't of puts in, that should be tougher for me. i would like to add one point basically, i think that's, that's the real shift far also for, for the europeans until this last election, europeans thought that's trump was just an accident of history and then bite and came back. and then we will come back to the trans atlantic partnership and the it will be like the you're saying that you're the sales? yes, of course. i mean the americans, the elective trump, said the beans. that's the i think most democrats thought the same. i think they thought that the 1st term term was an anomaly and now are heading back to uh, the charge headwaters is that is that we knew from the past. and i think that's why there is so much shock in the us because this does seem to reinforce the idea that

the old idea many, at least eastern west coast americans, meaning democrats had of their country is really now in question. and what trump will do in this 2nd term will take the us much further down the path. then his 1st term did not least because if we look at his cabinet back then he had the generals who were main street in thinkers who stood in many ways for that old order where the us of the trans atlantic alliance is the strongest of guide posts for american foreign policy, that won't be the case anymore. trump is already undermined of the credibility of the article 5 collective security guarantee he's already done. it's simply by calling it into question. so this 2nd term will take us into new waters. and let's dig in a little bit more into exactly what the ramifications of that are going to be when

you've got trump making threats of violence, even against the united states, close as allies. what does that mean for europe and for nato? donald trump, in europe always has a rocky relationship. the un nato has been a secondary concern for him. he has repeatedly threatened nature member states demanding they advocate 3 percent g d p for minute, for spending, if they want to america to defend them. now trump is, i think the n t again, well, i think nato should have 5 percent. yes. is was on dividing nato many men, but countries believe that even 3 percent is unrealistic. others have agreed to trump, the moms. then there is prompts promise to end the war and ukraine in 24 hours. how specific plans remain unclear, as is the future of us weapons surprise to ukraine. trump maintain strong relationships with several right. we european politicians, italian prime minister,

georgia maloney recently visited him and he is close ties with big to open. a key figure in european obstruction is the eat on musk. his head of government efficiency has recently interfered in german politics. he hosted a live chat on his social media platform ex without his mind, will the chance a candidate for the fall right at the party and she endorsed her in the upcoming elections. these developments raised questions about the future of transatlantic relations. so let's pick up on the issue of defense spending, which has long been a point of contention. right. we just heard from says he's increased how much he thinks nato allies should be spending from that 2 percent of g d p. now up to 5 percent. do you think there's something behind that specific number? so it's probably he thought i throw in 5 percent. maybe i get 3 and

a half. and the sad truth is we will be spending more for our defense on the trump . then we would, under president harris because we're more fearful that the us won't be there, the more fearful we are. we are more serious about investing in our own capabilities. i wouldn't necessarily say it's just a, a numbers game, but what do we want to spend this for? and do we have a plan? and i think the plan should be within the next 10 years. europeans should be able to provide for these critical enablers. within nato. on european soil that the us is actually providing right right now. and that will take a lot of energy will take a lot more efficiency. also in defense corporation in europe, we should invest in that, you know how much it will cost. we will then see, i think, and to, if we're, you know, if we're facing a war between nato and to, and russia, we'll spend more anyway and to so,

but we need to get serious about our own, our own defense efforts that will cost a lot of money, and we need to get our populations behind this so that for example, the german population thinks the burden is fairly shared within the population for that extra spending. that's the fairness about it. so the if using debt, basically if you look at the trump presidency from a positive, optimistic point of view, it can be the push for the europeans to finally a realize european sovereignty. mm hm. so let's see how much we use it. there's a term do. if there's a term for this effect that you actually move further under pressure from pump than you would have otherwise. and it seems to be anticipatory compliance and either the clients there is determine term to but i was the for house. is there a difference? but you basically try to, you're worried, he's going to make things even tough for you. so you go a little bit further toward his, his place,

his position than you would otherwise. it's really interesting and we've been talking about all these ways in which we might see a kind of new american expansionism over the next 4 years. but there's also some factors indicating that it could go the other direction, right, that we could see a trump administration. that's increasingly isolationist. i'm thinking specifically of, of ukraine. do we have an idea of where it's of what is actually a head for ukraine under the trump administration? uh, we have an idea because we, because we have a keeps catalog. who is this ben boy, far ukraine? dresser of farmer, general size. i know him and he is late. i was a strategy for ukraine like last year, which means basically that the concert will be frozen along the front line. and that's uh the you want to move these territories

will not belong to russia. i'll be in touch always the dresser occupies, but they fucked to where they will be controlled by russia. it will mean that the piece, the controlling force will be stationed along the contact line. and the, but it also will also mean that we don't give up ukraine to, to russia. it will mean that we will have to invest in ukraine to make it so called parcher pine. so it will be military military li ripped enough to um, to keep russia out and to keep rosa from attacking, attacking once again. i'm sorry, it's your thoughts because from what he said, do you think that from could appear weak if he seemed to be giving some of uprooted ones to him when the sad truth, the truth is we don't have an idea because we have an idea of what keeps couple of things, but we're trump things on any given moment of day that might also change whoever he

talked to last a we just don't have an idea or how is good. we can only hold that to. he doesn't want to appear weak as the president who sold all the ukraine who caved into putting him in a trumpet, myers strong man, but he doesn't want to. we look weak among other strong and either. so the only the appeal could be to trump say, you know, telling him points and actually failed with his effort. and you can make him actually look like a failure. the don't make him a success by throwing ukraine under the bus and throwing you europeans under the bus, but that's only a hope. we just don't know. trump has a lot of freedom to decide which way this, uh, this goes slowly, which is your convenience. we can only stick well, we want to invest in ukraine, security in our own security. and we're serious about that, melinda. i'm curious about your thoughts here too. and also with the timeline from

kind of famously originally said he'd and the war and ukraine in a day that now we think troop is very now focused on 6 months he wants, he wants to generate a headline just like you want to generate the headline for the middle east, it's also partly about domestic political consumption. but i think will trump undermine the international order that has sought to prevent attacks like rushes on ukraine? yes, he will. i think there's no question that he will probably. so ukraine short in ways that many of us we feel would not be conducive to, to reinforcing that prohibition on the use of force. but one other thing about isolationism, and that's tre policy. and we won't have time to discuss that, but there is for me, no question that trumps planned terrace against countries emerging economies against europe, potentially against our neighbors, canada, and mexico. this will lead to, to a great deal more skepticism about the us. it will lead how lies to look for other

coalitions of interest to try to balance out the us, and that will definitely undermine them. the united states, even in areas like the pre eminence of the dollar, you may see trade the patterns developing that, that try to circumvent business of dollars. and a more, it's just very quickly, before we go, i'll give you the final word, trump, the isolationist, or the expansionist. what do you think we're going to get trump, the guy who puts americans interest 1st. that's what he's promising america 1st. thank you so much to our entire panel for joining us for this really insightful discussion. we've had thorsten bena or is government, and belinda crane with me in the studio. i'm sorry, richardson you've been watching it to the points. thank you so much for joining us . the

are the

visa topics that we talk about private data isn't helping decide crying. social media algorithm tends to shift because uh, digital networks world notice. so what are the biggest challenges? we'll talk about that shift in 15 minutes and d, w. you're kind of always in signature style of the sized run.

see with caching and always where it's 09 in 30 minutes on d, w the the some making the tattoos to, to my left arm and i fainted. that's how i got the number the my, my number is 862-6900 and 59 cents a. so on of suffice to concentration camps as a 2 year old. it was only my shanita that she did to confront to the

life of the shuddered by trauma, ice of life, assigning into starts january 24th. oh d w. disruption is the goal. chaos is the goal. it's a wrecking crew. radically. they want to bring the system down stream rights come. so the donald trump will be the next president of the united states. rather nice in some ways for the vision is the american society division works for him. he wants to increase polarization. have to wait for trump's rise to power. these were the foot soldiers of mazda, the success of the for the rest of the world.

usa, the rise starts january 18th, on dw, the business day that we do use line from berlin. israel's governing coalition endorses as these fire deal with him on the decision paved the way for a 6 weeks pause in the fighting on sundays. of course hostages still held by a mouse, are expected to return to israel and exchange for dozens of palestinians prisoners . but can the truce turn into lasting peaks? also coming to the u. s. supreme court to uphold a ban on tick tock unless the platform is sold volume chinese parent company justices rule that the risk to national security out ways concerns about curbing.