Ivan Anchev before FACTS: With such a narrative, Trump becomes similar to the dictator in the Kremlin

How aggressive will Donald Trump be in his new term as US president? In recent days, clear messages of claims have been heard from him that have resonated throughout the world. Are these just words… Ivan Anchev, co-chair of the Atlantic Council of Bulgaria, an expert on international security, spoke to FACTI.

- Mr. Anchev, the new US president, Donald Trump, has not yet been sworn in, but has started asking for new territories. He asked for Canada, and for Greenland and Panama, he said that we "need" them. How do you view these requests…
- If they were made in a pre-election situation, they could easily be explained by internal party and internal political reasons – hardening of the MAGA core in the Republican Party, which would be intoxicated by such an opportunity. Far more worrying, however, are such requests now that the elections are behind Donald Trump and he has won practically everything - the White House, Congress, controls the Supreme Court through a majority of its more conservative judges. Such statements, questioning the international legal order and the resulting unconditional ban on redrawing interstate borders, are not a good example. Because with such a narrative, the leader of the free world, Trump, becomes similar to the dictator in the Kremlin. Where is the difference, both biased and unbiased will ask, and the answer will be very difficult, not to say impossible.

- Trump made claims to Denmark for Greenland, and both countries are members of NATO. The topic becomes very delicate, who will defend themselves and how, if there is a military conflict…
- Honestly, I do not believe that there will be a military conflict between Denmark and the United States, because this would undermine the entire security system in the Western world. Such, God forbid, a negative event would free the hands of Turkey and Greece to resolve their territorial disputes over islands in the Mediterranean, for example. Yes, according to a number of military experts, Greenland is of crucial importance for the security of the United States. This “unsinkable aircraft carrier“, if I may call the large island under Danish jurisdiction, is the most important sector for US radar protection against Russian and Chinese attacks. So I do not deny the right of the United States to seek security for its state and nation, but this can be done in the form of long-term international treaties. Moreover, there are several examples of such treaties in American history – the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, when the young American state literally doubled its territory overnight, as well as the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, thanks to the foresight of Secretary of State William Seward. So there are ways, but it definitely should not be done by force.

- We need Greenland for national security. These were Trump's words, but with the same argument Putin entered Ukraine - – “to preserve our compatriots"… The reason is there, it remains to be seen whether the actions…
- I say again that any military action by Trump in Greenland will add grist to the mill of pro-Putin supporters in Bulgaria and Europe. This is wrong, this is wrong and should not be allowed. I believe that such a scenario will not come to pass.

- Does it seem like Trump is just saying these words now so that people won't be surprised by what actions he takes later?
- The new/old President Trump is known for his unpredictability. He certainly has a knack for business negotiations. But is that also the case with bilateral and multilateral interstate negotiations? I wouldn't say that it is. There are significant differences between business and state-responsible activities. In one case, in the corporate world, the worst thing you can hear is: “You are fired!” (“You are fired!“) Trump's favorite line from his show “The Apprentice”. While a mistake in negotiations and activities at the state and international level can have long-term damage for your country and your people. We Bulgarians ourselves, due to wrong decisions and bad negotiations, have allowed three national catastrophes, the last one in 1944 when we allowed the Russian boot to run over Bulgaria and destroy the color of our nation. So the messages of politicians should not be ignored and neglected - on the contrary, they should be carefully observed and even studied, if you will...

- Will we see a new Trump, who is more aggressive, in the second term?
- We will see Trump, who will do everything possible best (according to him), so that he will remain in the history of America as the most worthy president. Notice - I do not say “worthy president“, I use the superlative form - “the most worthy president“. I have American friends who use the definition of Trump “the most worthy president we have ever had!“. The most worthy! More worthy than Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Lincoln? Hardly…

- Trump makes a statement that he hopes to end the war that Russia is waging against Ukraine within the first six months of his term. How will this be done?
- Donald Trump has assembled a good team on national security issues. General Keith Kellogg, who will be Trump's special envoy for Ukraine, is a serious person with very good professional expertise in conflict resolution. Mike Walz, who will hold the key position of national security advisor to the American president, is also a person who understands well the importance of the Ukrainian conflict and the impossibility of resolving it to the detriment of the attacked country, in this case - Ukraine, because this would deal a very heavy reputational blow to the already elected President Trump. This is something that Donald Trump himself does not want and would not allow. Another positive example is the future Secretary of State Marco Rubio - a long-time senator and a person with very clear positions on Russia and dictatorial regimes. But Trump's team has its weak links, which I would like to see failed, rejected by the Senate. Such is, for example, Tulsi Gabbard - a former Democratic congresswoman who defected to Trump's camp and was perhaps rewarded by him for being the Director of National Intelligence. This is a key position in the American administration. The American intelligence community includes 18 intelligence agencies, each of which is infinitely important in its own right. And the top coordinator of this key element of US national security will be the same Tulsi Gabbard, who is an outspoken admirer of Putin.

Not a Russophile. Putinist!

I'm terrified if the US Senate doesn't stop her appointment. I sincerely hope I don't see her enter the office of the Director of National Intelligence in McLean (Virginia).

- The newly elected American president has once again threatened Mexico with new tariffs and said he wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico to "American Gulf". Trump opens many fronts, but can the US withstand such an aggressive policy?
- Look, whether the Gulf will be called “Mexican“ or “American“ - it doesn't matter. On some maps it will be called one way, on others - the other. You know that we call the Gulf between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula “Persian“. But in the entire Arab world it is defined and written as “Arabian“ Gulf. Does this in any way change the meaning of the Strait of Hormuz, which is the mouth of the Persian/Arabian Gulf? So let's look at the big picture, not what it is called. And here is the moment to note that, perhaps, one of the stated actions of the future new/old American president - the issue of the Panama Canal, deserves to be noted as fair. This canal was built by the United States at the beginning of the 20th century. at the cost of unique engineering achievements. Note - I'm not bringing up the human sacrifices, which are of course important and we should honor them, but the engineering achievements. Thanks to the Panama Canal, ship traffic between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been reduced from 2-3 months to 8-10 hours. For the benefit of all humanity! And at one point, about 70 years later, a weak liberal Democrat president comes - Jimmy Carter, his memory is bright, he died a few days ago, that day was his funeral ceremony in Washington, and says: "We are returning the Panama Canal"! But how so, huh! How do you return it to a country whose president (Manuel Noriega) was arrested in 1989 by the 82nd Airborne Division of the US and convicted in Miami for drug trafficking? Today, the Panama Canal is under the indirect but real control of China, placing all global maritime traffic between the West and the East in Chinese dependence. Is this what we want? To depend on a totalitarian regime for the transport of goods between the two hemispheres? If anyone does not understand the threat that comes from China, let them check where the Chinese radar stations are located in South America. I will give you a hint - on both coasts of the continent - on the Atlantic and the Pacific. Are there any surprises? So, on a par with the Russian threat, which is far more visible to us here in the Balkans, on a global scale - this is the Chinese totalitarian threat.

- At the same time, Elon Musk, who has become very close to Trump, openly supports the “Alternative for Germany“, which has caused a lot of reactions in Europe. Will we see Musk in a new role – already political, during Trump's term…
- It's hard for me to answer this question. Elon Musk is undoubtedly a person who will leave his visible role in the history of mankind – on a par with Archimedes, Leonardo and Galileo. I'm not exaggerating – it's a fact! But I wish he would stay only in the technological sphere. But as is well known – – “appetite comes with eating”. And if you start to shine with the reflected light of the world leader, backed up by the golden reflections of your personal wealth, the possibility of your brain and perceptions becoming clouded is quite real. I myself do not understand why a person like Musk should support Nigel Farage and Alice Weidel. But we will find out soon, I hope, if only it is not too late…
-------------------------
Ivan Anchev is co-chair of the Atlantic Council of Bulgaria, an expert on international security, with several diplomatic mandates in the United States, the last of which (2016 – 2020) as Consul General of Bulgaria in Chicago. Doctor of National Security.