As of January 20, 2025, Republicans Donald Trump and JD Vance took over the administration from Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the United States. President Trump’s theses concerning Greenland, Canada, Mexico, the Panama Canal, and Ukraine, which he has put forward and imposed on the world agenda with a nonchalant disregard for diplomatic and political conventions, have caused confusion in European countries.
This article will highlight the events caused by the new Republican administration’s theses in the Western Hemisphere and Europe, examine the connection between these and what has been happening in Ukraine. All of these points will collectively be referred to as the “Republican Thesis” from this point forward.
Republican Thesis: Attempts to Preserve American Influence in Political and Military Geography
In geopolitics circles, the United States is depicted as an oasis surrounded by weak or friendly countries in the north and south, and by oceans in the east and west. Natural harbors, rivers suitable for shipping and agricultural irrigation, and plenty of land are considered the main reasons for the United States is a world power. [1]
The Republican Thesis, which came to power under the leadership of Trump and Vance, argues that this oasis is exposed to threats from direct neighbors and that American power has been damaged as a result. Announcing that the US-Mexico border will be defended by armed forces if necessary, bringing the flow of drugs from Mexico and Canada to the US to the mainstream media, and threatening these countries with tariff increases on these grounds are outputs of the Republican Thesis.
From this point, the definition of the Republican Thesis can now be given: The Republican Thesis is a narrative arguing that the fundamentals and guarantees of American political, economic, and military power are being eroded day by day, and that this trend needs to be reversed.
Greenland and Canada
Trump’s intention to purchase Greenland from Denmark, which he also conveyed during his first presidency, although ridiculed at the time, is not something that first came to Trump’s mind. [2] Greenland has been on the US agenda since the 19th century and from World War II onwards, the US has maintained a military presence there. Since then, Denmark has only been sovereign on the island on paper, having ceded Greenland’s defense to the US. [3] Trump’s request to buy the island essentially amounts to naming the de facto situation.
Although Trump’s rhetoric about making Canada the 51st American state sounds reckless and disrespectful to international conventions, it is a recorded fact that since World War II, the US has forced Canada to comply with American policies in Arctic defense and has worked to transform Canada’s armed forces from a structure that looks to the British for planning and operations to one that looks to the Americans.[4]
Moreover, although American Republicans have not yet named or openly expressed it in the media, they also perceive Canada’s demographic transformation over the last decade as a threat.
Geographical Justifications of the Republican Thesis: The Arctic and Maritime Trade Routes
The justification for American Republicans’ initiatives regarding the annexation of Greenland and Canada to the US can be easily understood by taking a look at the map of the Arctic Circle. The prediction and expectation that melting ice will open up sea routes conducive to trade is shared by the US, Russia, and China. [5]
Based on this expectation, Russia is reactivating Arctic bases from the Soviet era and flying strategic bombers in international airspace in the region. China, on the other hand, is trying to increase its influence in the region through infrastructure tenders, especially airports in Greenland, and mining activities. [6]
A map showing the existing and future trade routes in the Arctic. The importance of holding Canada and Greenland in dominating the route called “Future Central Arctic Shipping Route,” with the prediction that ice will allow cargo ships to pass, is clear. Source: Arctic Portal.
In this conflict of territorial and maritime control, where guns have not yet been fired, the response of the Republican Thesis, which has come to power in the US, to the current environment and conditions is to make the US a coast line owner facing the Arctic Ocean. Alaska and Thule Air Base partially gives the US that status; however, the Republican Thesis, in accordance with the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, demands more.
Mexico: The Target Country Regarding Human and Drug Trafficking
One of the Republicans’ greatest election promises was to end human and drug trafficking at the southern border. Drug cartels have been placed on the US list of terrorist organizations on the grounds that they are involved in both activities on the Mexican side. Control of the US-Mexico border has also been transferred to the Department of Defense. [7]
Panama Canal: Former American Territory
The Panama Canal is a strategic sea route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and is vital for global trade. The French first tried to open the canal in the 19th century, but the project failed due to diseases and financial problems.
The US, supporting Panama’s independence in 1903, took over the construction of the canal and completed it in 1914. The canal, which remained US territory throughout the 20th century, was only transferred to Panama in 1999. [8]
The reason Trump has brought the canal back to the agenda and suggested that it should be American territory again is that Chinese companies operate ports around the Panama Canal. The presence of China at trade routes and stops between the two oceans, especially in South America, is one of the items that disturbs the Republican Thesis.
This issue appears to have been resolved for now with American real estate company BlackRock taking over the operation of two ports in Panama from Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison. [9]
The Foundation of the Republican Thesis: Monroe Doctrine and Beyond
The Monroe Doctrine is a foreign policy principle declared by US President James Monroe on December 2, 1823.[10] The doctrine was a declaration prohibiting European states from establishing new colonies in the American continent or intervening in existing independent states.
It was particularly introduced to support the independence movements of Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America. It aimed to prevent Spain and other European powers from returning to the continent and recapturing their former colonies.
Although the Monroe Doctrine did not initially have a major impact due to the limited military power of the US, it became one of the fundamental principles that increased US influence over Latin America in the 20th century.
As of World War II, these principles began to manifest themselves in the northern hemisphere as well, in Canada and Greenland, which were already European colonies in 1823.
A map showing the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. Britain supported the Doctrine with the aim of pulling Latin America away from Spanish yoke. However, this never deterred the US from planning to take the north. Source: Perry Castañeda Map Collection – Historical – UT Library Online
Based on what has been explained so far, we can argue that the Republican Thesis is based on repairing the damages the Monroe Doctrine has suffered in the Western Hemisphere and expanding the area it covers northward.
So far, we have examined the US’s interaction with its immediate geography. Next, we will address its interaction with Europe.
Where Does Europe Stand?
The Republican Thesis’s view of Europe should be evaluated based on Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference.[11] Vance’s criticism on European governments for treating their citizens as replaceable cogs of the global economy and depriving them of democratic representation is a solid statement of the US’s vision for Europe.
In his speech, which will be referred to as the “Munich Speech” from this point forward, JD Vance clearly stated the general lines of the US’s vision of ‘a Europe worth shedding blood to protect and nurture.’ According to this vision, Europe should be a place where:
• The EU respects the democratic process in member countries,
• Citizens’ freedom of expression and freedom of religion and conscience are not interfered with,
• Human trafficking is not tolerated, and attacks on national identities come to an end.
JD Vance explicitly stated in his Munich Speech that otherwise, there would be no reason for the US to fulfill its commitments to Europe.
The US’s loyalty to its obligations through NATO is a factor that varies according to how committed its allies are to the aforementioned principles. This is what is ostensibly declared in the Munich Speech: The Republican Thesis sees dictatorships in Europe that curtail the political and economic representation of the indigenous population and import population. The Munich Speech can be read as a jurisprudence made at the highest level that the US’s commitments to NATO do not cover these dictatorships.
From this point, it is essential to consider the Munich Speech as a primary source document to understand what the Republican Thesis’s commitment for Europe depends on.
Another demand of the Republican Thesis from Europe is for the continent to take a greater share in the financial burden of defending itself. Since Trump’s first presidency, he has insistently emphasized that NATO countries should exceed a certain threshold in defense spending relative to GDP. [12]
It is quite clear where the lion’s share of increased defense budgets will flow. It can be said that the intention of the Republican Thesis is to take the first steps of reindustrialization based on the defense industry that was not moved to the Asian continent during the Reagan-Thatcher era.
In summary, the Republican Thesis is demanding tribute from the European wing of NATO because it believes that the US is not in a position to shoulder the financial burden of holding the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans on its own.
The boundaries of the geography from which the Republican Thesis demands tribute extend to Ukraine; however, Ukraine, unlike other European countries, is not even included in the jurisprudence made in the Munich Speech of the Republican Thesis. The Republican Thesis is not interested in how nationalistic and libertarian Ukraine is, but in how willing it is to enter the yoke of a modern General Debt Administration. In short, Ukraine is the starting point of the American-Russian Entente.
Ukraine: The First Victim of the American-Russian Entente
In analyzing the new American-Russian Entente, we tend to rely on similarities with the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907. Therefore, it is beneficial to look at the 1907 Entente before describing the 2025 Entente.
The Story of the 1907 Entente [13]
On August 31, 1907, Britain and Russia signed a treaty in St. Petersburg, completing the final link in the alliance system that extended to World War I.
Despite this treaty addressing Iran, Tibet, and Afghanistan, not Europe, it was a measure against the rise of Germany. There were important reasons for Britain and Russia to focus on these regions; primarily, there was a desire to resolve the historical tension that had been ongoing since the 1830s and was known as the “Great Game.”
As with other colonial treaties, negotiations were conducted without consulting the relevant countries, and these regions were effectively considered protectorates.
The Russians were aware of Britain’s sensitivity about countries neighboring India. They had built railways extending to the Afghan border. Britain was concerned about an attack on India from there, but it was evident that deploying sufficient military force would be excessively costly. Britain was already struggling with the economic consequences of the Second Boer War; therefore, diplomacy was the cheaper option.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Britain began to abandon the “splendid isolation” it had adopted at the end of the 19th century. It formed an alliance with Japan in 1902 and created the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904. From the British perspective, one of the important aims of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was to prevent Russia’s expansion or, worse, a separate agreement that could be made between Russia and Japan that could undermine Britain’s position in the Far East.
Having entered the First World War as an ally with the Japanese, Russians, and French through the ententes it signed, Britain had the opportunity to open Turkey, which promised greater rewards compared to the Iran-Tibet line, to scramble for partition.
Turkey is the country most exposed to the aftereffects of the 1907 Anglo-Russian Entente. The British preferred to see the task of keeping Russia away from India by agreeing with Russia rather than by guaranteeing Turkey’s territorial integrity and increasing its military power. This preference left the Turks between the British Navy and the Russian Army in the First World War. However, until sixty years ago, Turkey found itself shoulder to shoulder with the British every time she fought against the Russians.
In general, the 1907 Entente is the result of the British calculation that it is impossible to fight both Germany and Russia at the same time. Based on this calculation, in return for withdrawing from southern Iran and Afghanistan, it promised Russia Turkey, which it had defended for decades. Since Anglo-Saxon states have the power to implement such a 180-degree policy change, forming an alliance with them is like walking a tightrope.
What has been told so far about the 1907 Entente has most likely evoked the events occurring today in the reader’s mind; however, to make the situation abundantly clear, it will be addressed under the name of the 2025 Entente.
The Emerging 2025 Entente
Traces of the 1907 Entente can be seen in the Republican Thesis’s attitude towards the Ukraine-Russia War.
The US is in no rush to include Ukraine in ceasefire and peace negotiations. Like Britain, which solely negotiated with Russia in the sharing of influence areas in Iran and Afghanistan, it treats Ukraine not as a sovereign and unitary state, but as a political and economic sphere of influence. This is clear in Trump and Vance’s attitude towards Zelensky. In 2025, Ukraine, like Turkey in 1914, sees demand of capitulations looking West and Russian occupation looking East.
It can be said that the Republican Thesis, just as Britain calculated at the beginning of the 20th century that it was impossible to be enemies with both the German and Russian Empires, foresees that in the 21st century, it is impossible to be enemies with both Russia and China. Therefore, as in the 1907 Entente, it suggests that diplomatic negotiation with Russia is necessary and the way out because it believes that the “New Germany [14]” posing a threat to both the US and Russia is China.
The security policy thesis of the Democratic administration under the leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris was that the US could resolve its disputes with China without resorting to weapons, but such an arrangement was not possible with Russia. The Democratic Thesis and the Republican Thesis agree on the impossibility of being enemies with two great powers; they diverge on which one should be the enemy.
Besides its features that evoke and call upon the 1907 Entente, the Republican Thesis also has a side concerning US domestic politics. The Republican Thesis sees Ukraine as a base where the Democratic administration launders its black money and conducts its covert operations. Based on this perception, it believes that unless it drains the Ukraine swamp, to put it crudely, its rule at home will be quite temporary.
How Did Ukraine End Up in This Situation?
Ukraine’s status as an equal among equals, with respect for its unitary and sovereign structure in the international community after the dissolution of the USSR, effectively fell with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. [15] Ukraine, which surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the US, United Kingdom, and Russia, became vulnerable to occupation and economic capitulations.
Russia, a party to the security guarantee in question, is taking advantage of this vulnerability by partially invading Ukraine; the other party, the US, is taking advantage by offering to put the weakened Ukraine due to invasion under economic subjugation.
Conclusion
Analyses adorned with references to World War II, based on the eternal Anglo-Saxon-Russian duality, are insufficient to make sense of today’s world. This insufficiency can largely be overcome with the acceptance that the conditions shaping today’s world are more similar to World War I and before rather than World War II. In order to support this claim, the definition of the Republican Thesis has been made, and the new Republican administration’s view of the world has been addressed through the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and the 1907 Anglo-Russian Entente.
The Republican Thesis is a narrative that predicts that the US’s geopolitical and demographic foundations have been damaged, that this damage has weakened the US, and that imposes radical policy changes on the border line and in the political and economic arena to recover from this situation. In the current situation, it puts forward its own conditions instead of being subject to the conditions of NATO, its most prominent alliance. It is looking for allies in the world that are similar to it or already similar in these regards.
While the Republican Thesis explicitly declares that it does not want any prominent power other than herself in the Western Hemisphere, it is open to sharing negotiations in the Eastern Hemisphere. It makes the US’s involvement in Europe’s defense conditional on meeting political demands that amount to regime change and economic demands that resemble tribute. Therefore, the search for allies in question is not only a passive process but also an attempt to create the desired ally.
It is evident how and to what extent the Thesis affects Ukraine’s fate and to which historical examples it can be compared. There is no concrete evidence that the New American-Russian Entente, inspired by the line of the 1907 Anglo-Russian Entente, only covers Ukraine.
It can be said that the Republican Thesis has irreversibly divorced the US from the guise of a ‘rules-based international order’ and has opened a new Era of Conquest. In this era, the struggle of nations without nuclear weapons is the struggle not to be conquered.
Time will tell who will emerge victorious from this struggle.
Bibliography
[1] Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Tell You Everything You Need To Know About Global Politics, Tim Marshall, Elliot & Thompson Limited, 2015. [2] For Greenland being one of the issues occupying the US agenda since the 19th century, see: A Report on the Resources of Iceland and Greenland, Benjamin Mills Peirce, U.S. State Department, 1868. [3] Buying Greenland? Trump, Truman and the ‘Pearl of the Mediterranean’, Thorsten Borring Olesen, nordic.info, 2019. [4] Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Volume V: The British Commonwealth, Western and Central Europe, United States Government Printing Office, 2018. [5] Russia’s Arctic Security Policy: SIPRI Policy Paper No. 45, Ekaterina Klimenko, SIPRI, 2016. [6] Let’s (Not) Make A Deal: Geopolitics And Greenland, Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, WOTR, 2019. [7] Terrorist Designations of International Cartels: Press Statement, Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, February 20, 2025. [8] Panama Canal, Britannica, 1998. [9] BlackRock to take control of ports in Panama Canal from Hong Kong firm as US worries over Chinese influence grow, Ariel Zilber, New York Post, March 4, 2025. [10] Monroe, who aimed to open Spain’s former Latin American colonies to free trade, rejected Britain’s proposal for a joint declaration sharing similar concerns. In this way, it can be said that the Monroe Doctrine’s turning its face to the north was historically made possible: The Monroe Doctrine: The United States and Latin American Independence, National Museum of American Diplomacy, January 10, 2024. [11] Munich Speech, JD Vance, 2025. [12] The US thinks Europe isn’t pulling its weight on Nato, Alicja Hagopian, Independent, February 15, 2025 [13] Anglo-Russian Entente 1907, Tara Finn, History of Government, 2017. [14] “Germany sought a way out of this impasse through the alliance of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire and the Berlin-Baghdad Railway Project. Germany’s goal, as one of its admirals put it, was ‘to break England’s hegemony over the world and to open up the areas needed by Central European states in need of expansion by liberating England’s colonies.’ Similarly today, China needs market, secure trade routes, and abundant energy to sustain its massive economy dependent on economic growth, to feed its enormous population, and to keep the wheels of its industry, which is the world’s factory, turning. Therefore, we can say that China has fallen into a similar impasse/dilemma as Germany did, and China is trying to implement the OBOR initiative, in which many countries participate as stakeholders in a wide geography, to escape this vise.” From the Berlin-Baghdad Railway Project to the Belt and Road Initiative Conflict Axis, İrfan Özgül, sosyalizm.org, March 21, 2023. [15] Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
