Transcript: Trump’s Crazed NATO Tirades Rattle Experts: “Mad, Erratic”

And the U.S. was always the one that could break it and so forth. And we annexed all kinds of territory, and we don’t treat the people equally. American Samoa, for example, Puerto Rico. So in that sense, it’s not so much of a direct break.

The fact that he’s not even rhetorically defending the principle of territorial order is different, right? You can accuse previous presidents of hypocrisy because they were trying to uphold the principle while violating it. He’s not even trying to uphold it. He’s essentially siding with the Putins of the world who feel it can be violated and shouldn’t ever really exist.

Plus you also have the... you’re attacking your own NATO ally, which is a new dimension. And I think that is what really makes it the potential death blow to whatever remains of the rules-based order.

Sargent: So what’s going to happen, Elizabeth?

Saunders: My goodness. I still think when push comes to shove, I have a hard time imagining what even a military landing on Greenland or takeover or annexation—I have a hard time connecting the dots from where we are now to the U.S. owns Greenland.

That said, absolutely nothing would surprise me. And I do think that for the Europeans and for Canada, this is a real—if the Munich Security Conference was a shock wake-up call, this is the turning point.

Sargent: Well, Elizabeth Saunders, that was certainly harrowing enough, but talk about realism. You gave us a good dose of it. Great to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on.

Saunders: Thank you for having me.