Hanzi Responds to "Oh, Europe."

Emil Ejner Friis was kind enough to address my response to his open letter to Americans. I have included his thoughts and my interstitial responses.

AI Hanzi Freinacht

Dear Mr. Friis,

Thank you for engaging my response to your open letter to Americans. Even though I disagree with much in your correspondence, I find it unoffensive. I shall endeavor to mirror your gentlemanly mien in my responses and extend you the last word, should you want to take it.

You ask whether I’m speaking as a “Swede whose country stayed out of WWII and has not spent more than 1.5 percent of its GDP on defense—despite living right across the sea from your enemy in the middle of a so-called ‘security crisis’—or a ‘Swiss character’ from a country that always declares neutrality.”

Let’s clear that up. I’m speaking as a Dane—from a country that has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States for over 70 years, whose soldiers have fought and bled in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside their American comrades, only to now be called a “bad ally” and threatened with war if we don’t hand over Greenland. Yes, Greenland—a self-governing nation within the Danish Commonwealth, whose people just voted for a government that explicitly wants to remain part of the kingdom.

Very well. A Dane.

Remember, my response concerned tut-tutting your Dear American Friends for being fashionably late to world wars. That seems odd coming from one whose leaders declared neutrality in World War II but whose country was occupied by the Nazis anyway. That means Americans sacrificed at least two orders of magnitude more lives than the Danes in WWII, our tardiness notwithstanding.

As to the “bad ally” quotation, the actual quotation, from Vice President JD Vance, referred to Denmark as "not being a good ally" in the context of Arctic security. As far as I can determine, this criticism centered on perceived restrictions on U.S. access to Greenland, which might have helped how? Correct: An Arctic check on Russia. The current administration’s perception is that Denmark would like US counter-Russian assets concentrated in Ukraine (neither ally nor NATO member), but not on Danish colonial territory (ally and NATO member). How do you think they got that perception?

Whatever the case, I do not support veiled threats to annex Greenland. And Greenlanders should self-govern, whether that means choosing to live under the US, Denmark, or neither.

I’m also speaking as a personal friend to people across your northern border—the sovereign country called Canada.

And it’s funny. Every time I criticize Trump’s administration for its expansionist delusions, the responses come in two predictable forms: dead silence or a scattershot attempt at deflection.

Please remember: Any criticism of Trump you might have is like a match dropped on the sun. That is, Trump criticism is omnipresent over here. Half the country hates him. Some of us feel ambivalent. I try to call balls and strikes and hope for the best. So your single data point feels—off—especially in that you didn’t direct your consternation at Trump in the open letter, but instead at your “American Friends.” Indeed, at no point did you mention Trump, but instead you made liberal use of the second person. Still, to address every criticism of Trump would be like scraping all the barnacles from the side of a ship with our fingernails. We have to pick our battles barnacles.

But I have yet to hear a single Trump apologist openly say that annexing Canada and Greenland is a great idea—or admit that, just perhaps, it’s insane.

Annexing Canada is trolling. Annexing Greenland might not be. But I find it endlessly fascinating how people go apoplectic in the face of brash talk, but stay mum in the wake of illiberal—even deadly—actions.

To annex Greenland would be imperialist, but under a strictly realist IR conception, very much in the U.S. national interest. Yet I agree it would be insane, because I am not a simple realist. Athens should have left Melos alone. Powerful nations should be models of ethics, even if they carry big sticks. That said, whether Greenland's annexation might be a good idea depends on whom you ask. I think it’s insane, but no more insane than continuing to bankroll a deadly three-year-old proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

And let’s be clear: if the U.S. wants to scale back its security commitments in Europe, fine—go ahead. European nations should take more responsibility for their own defense. But let’s not pretend this is just about fair burden-sharing. The U.S. is not merely stepping back; it is actively undermining its closest allies while cozying up to authoritarian regimes.

You again refer to the U.S., not Trump or your American Friends. As I noted in my last correspondence, this is confusing. But never mind. Let’s switch targets.

To argue that the Trump Administration is “actively undermining its closest allies while cozying up to authoritarian regimes” is quite a claim, one that requires some evidence. How is the US actively undermining Denmark? A failure to make Denmark better off does not make the kingdom worse off. And what does it mean, specifically, to cozy up to an authoritarian regime? Did the Trump Administration send materiel to Russia, or is talking to Putin just a return to diplomacy? In the absence of evidence, your claim is a just-so story.

Put another way, how is the following not “cozying up” to an authoritarian?

1. Germany: Germany was Russia's largest gas customer, importing approximately 35 billion cubic meters annually before the Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged in September 2022. (45).

2. Italy: Italy imported around 22 billion cubic meters annually, accounting for a significant portion of its energy needs (5).

3. France: France relied on Russian gas for 13.5 billion cubic meters per year before supplies were reduced due to the Nord Stream shutdown (5).

4. Austria: Austria depended on Russian gas for more than 80% of its supply, importing approximately 6 billion cubic meters annually (45).

5. Latvia: Latvia also relied on Russia for over 80% of its gas consumption (4).

6. Netherlands: The Netherlands was another significant consumer of Russian pipeline gas (2).

7. Slovakia: Slovakia imported about 6.5 billion cubic meters annually and maintained contracts with Gazprom until 2028 (5).

8. Greece: Russian imports accounted for 60% of Greece's gas consumption as late as mid-2024 (3).

There is a massive gulf between talk and action.

As I wrote here, “While Trump has made overtures about annexing Greenland—or making Canada the twenty-first state—his predecessors since WWII have built more bases abroad, invaded more countries, and launched more wars.”

Now, tariffs. Yes, the U.S. is entitled to protect its economy, though the market itself seems to disagree with Trump’s approach. But using tariffs as a weapon to coerce Canada into submission? That’s not “negotiation”—that’s economic warfare against an ally.

The stock market itself? Forgive me, this sounds like a sociologist attempting to do economics. Nevertheless, in my last missive, I wrote that tariffs everywhere should be zero. I also showed you the disparity between Canadian tariffs on US goods vs. US tariffs on Canadian goods (for Europe, too). Am I to understand Europe and Canada were engaging in economic warfare against the US?

Anyway, I don’t know whether these wacky tariffs and big talk will work to bring other countries into alignment and “reciprocity,” much less free trade. The first question is whether Europeans and Canadians hate Trump more than they see the value of reducing trade barriers. The second question is whether Trump is an old protectionist, like the US presidents mentioned in the chart below.

One can argue that these former presidents were engaging in “economic warfare,” but that seems a bit hysterical even for history.

And here’s a question: if the U.S. doesn’t want to trade, shouldn’t the EU and Canada be free to trade among themselves? Yet when they do, Trump suddenly cries foul and threatens “repercussions.” It’s childish.

I haven’t seen where Trump has shaken his fist at Europe and Canada for trading with one another, but if he has, I wouldn’t be surprised. It would be childish. Trump can be childish. But again, you never mentioned Trump in the original open letter.

Oh, and about Canada supposedly “free-riding” on U.S. defense spending—who exactly is threatening Canada? The same Canada that, like Denmark, has sent troops to fight in America’s wars.

Let’s pass over whether Canada or Denmark sending troops into America’s wars suffices as adequate payment for the US’s security umbrella. (Personally, I think it’s enough for the US to taper off such commitments where possible.) The real question is whether and to what extent Canada and Denmark should have been involved in those unwise wars at all.

If one argues that Canada and Denmark were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because of NATO membership, then perhaps this should cause us to question the wisdom of NATO. (I have come to accept that these wars were unwise, and at some level, most Europeans knew they were too.) What is the limiting principle going forward if Canada and Denmark were involved because of some loyalty to the US as a friend and ally? In other words, if Denmark wages war against X, is the US obliged to enter that war, in perpetuity, because we’re BFFs?

Don’t forget: We are broke.

Now, despite all this, I actually welcome some of the chaos. There is a silver lining in the madness. Europe has been far too comfortable relying on the U.S. security umbrella. The fact that many European countries haven’t met the 2% GDP defense target is a serious issue. And perhaps the Trump era is exactly the kick Europe needs to take responsibility for its own security.

I’m happy we found something on which we agree.

But let’s not kid ourselves. The real issue here isn’t that the U.S. is stepping back from old commitments. The real issue is that the U.S. itself is sliding toward authoritarianism.

Yes, it is. It has been for decades, which I pointed out in my initial response to your open letter. Remember? The trouble is, many Europeans have been suckered into the idea that Trump is primarily responsible for that authoritarian slide.

Those of us who have been shouting such warnings at anyone who will listen have to hear the incessant cries of silly harpies crying “fascism,” while overlooking it in their favored regimes. Yet the slide goes way back. Our national-security state has been meddling in global affairs and has had its iron fingers wrapped around Europe’s balls since 1945. The actual fascists are none too keen to dial back their imperialism, corporatism, and censorship. Yet this trifecta marked the Biden Administration, despite his doddering and dementia.

Where were the cries of authoritarianism then?

Today, Europe unwittingly conjures the specter of Mussolini while calling itself liberal. In short, Mr. Friis, if you’re worried about authoritarianism, look closer to home. Imperialism could follow Europe’s slide into corporatism and censorship.

That its current leader seems more ideologically aligned with Putin than with the democratic world. You think European leaders are corrupt? Just wait until you see what happens when Russian-style kleptocracy fully takes root on American soil.

Oh wait—that’s already happening.

In terms of our president’s purported ideological alignment with Putin, I’ll leave such claims to the leftwing fever swamp.

Otherwise, welcome to the awakened. American-style kleptocracy and corruption are recurring themes here at Underthrow. A cursory review of the DOGE website reveals savings from auditing our empire of graft, savings that already equal half the Danish national budget—and DOGE hasn’t finished the job. (Yet our tolerant left calls Elon Musk a Nazi, torches Teslas, and denies all the corruption.)

What it costs taxpayers to service our debt is three times Denmark’s national budget. Yet after three years of funding 85 percent of a proxy war that has yielded nothing but a generation of dead men, Europeans are pitching a fit. Sorry. We’ve had it. Wasting resources on war is not undermining you; it’s undermining us.

PS: Please convey my warm regards to Daniel Görtz.

PPS: I can’t make heads or tails of this chart. If it resulted in far more bilateral free trade agreements, it might be worth it for all parties in the long run. Otherwise, this is not my idea of reciprocal tariffs, which would be made on a percentage tit-for-tat basis. This schedule seems to include *trade imbalances,* which is economic quackery.