'The old world order is dead': Trump, Canada and the battle for the West

Summary

---

Battle Lines – January 23, 2026

"The old world order is dead": Trump, Canada and the battle for the West

---

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode of Battle Lines centers on an extraordinary week of geopolitical upheaval: the US-Denmark-Greenland crisis, Donald Trump’s and Canadian PM Mark Carney’s dueling visions for the global order at Davos, and the rise of a new “Board of Peace” initiative poised as an alternative to the UN. Hosts Venetia Rainey and Roland Oliphant, joined by correspondent James Rothwell (reporting from Nuuk, Greenland) and chief foreign commentator David Blair, provide in-depth reporting and analysis on what may be the unraveling of the Western-led international order, and the realignment of alliances in the face of assertive US power.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Crisis in Greenland: US “Sovereign Base” Deal

Reporting from Nuuk, Greenland:
James Rothwell describes a “muted” but anxious response among locals to reports that the US will be given sovereign control over certain military base areas in Greenland—a scenario reminiscent of British bases on Cyprus.

• The American, Danish, and Greenlandic governments are moving towards a deal where parts of Greenland become US “sovereign base areas.”
• Core local anxiety is less about resource exploitation and much more about longstanding traumas of colonialism and independence:

  “We will not breathe a sigh of relief until there is normalization and Greenland, Denmark receive clear confirmation that Greenland will not be annexed in one way or another.”
  — Orla Yolsson, Greenlandic independence activist (04:23)

• Many Inuit Greenlanders see themselves “in a tug of war between two colonial powers”—the US and Denmark—rather than caught in a major-power contest with Russia or China (08:47).
• The threat of mineral/resource exploitation as a justification for American moves is widely overhyped, per both Danish experts and practical realities: the terrain is punishing, infrastructure almost non-existent, and two major mining projects remain stuck in legal limbo.
  • Greenland holds an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of rare earths but, as Venetia Rainey notes, “we’re so far from where we can actually get to them and, crucially, process them, which China does for over 90% around the world” (07:21).
• Militarization and security: Despite Trump’s rhetoric about Greenland being overrun with Russian and Chinese vessels, Rothwell asserts, “the only thing you can see are fishing boats… and the occasional Danish coast guard patrol ship” (11:13).

“If the annexation were to happen, it would just be the transfer from one colonial power to the other.”
— James Rothwell (08:59)

Local Color:
Rothwell paints a vivid picture of Nuuk: frigid, postcard-perfect, with “sheer walls of ice,” hardy fishermen and hunter-culture, and deep undercurrents of tension between Danish and Inuit communities (12:26).

---

2. The Diplomatic Solution: A “Shabby Necessity?”

David Blair’s Analysis:
Blair, who presciently proposed the model of US sovereign bases on Greenland, describes the deal as “shabby” but likely necessary to prevent outright confrontation:

“A sovereign state, Denmark, will be bullied and browbeaten into giving up some of its sovereign territory… You're breaking a central principle by watching a country like Denmark being browbeaten in this way. It might be necessary, but it’s a terrible necessity.”
— David Blair (22:18)

Wider Implications:
He sees the willingness of Europe to unite behind Denmark, and not yield to Trump's divide-and-rule tactics, as one positive sign for “middle powers” going forward.

---

3. The Death of the Old World Order: Carney’s Manifesto

A Moment-Defining Speech:
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivers a keynote at Davos, using Václav Havel’s “living within a lie” to describe decades of western-anchored international order and its current collapse:

“This bargain no longer works… We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is. We are taking the sign out of the window. We know the old order is not coming back…”
— Mark Carney, via selected speech clips (24:30–25:30)

Carney urges “middle powers” (Canada, the UK, France, others) to band together, confront the realities of power politics, and chart a new path rooted in cooperation and honesty about the limits of U.S. hegemony.

• The hosts and guests find this rhetoric both “refreshing” and “inspiring,” marking a break from Western platitudes (27:44).
• Roland likens the analysis to a long-delayed “calling a spade a spade,” and frames Carney’s call as a possible birth of a “new nonaligned block” (28:24).
• Trump, by contrast, is openly dismissive, telling Canada:

  “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”
  — Donald Trump (29:28)

---

4. Trump’s Davos Vision: Board of Peace vs. the UN

The “Board of Peace” Announcement:
Trump stages a media event at Davos, rolling out a “Board of Peace” concept that purports to be an alternative or supplement to the UN, with ambitious rhetoric and unclear substance.

• The board gathers populist allies (Argentina’s Javier Milei, Hungary’s Viktor Orban), minor states, and notably excludes almost all of the UN Security Council P5 (UK, France, Russia, China, US).
• France and the UK choose not to join, fearing permanent damage to their positions in the existing order.
  • Blair:

  “If there’s one thing that’s even more important than staying on the right side of Trump for Keir Starmer, that’s the British permanent seat on the UN Security Council. That’s probably the single greatest diplomatic asset the United Kingdom possesses.” (36:59)

• Trump’s own description is strikingly blunt:

  “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do and we'll do it in conjunction with the United Nations. … On the eight wars that I ended, I never spoke to the United Nations about any of them.”
  — Donald Trump (34:03)

UN in Decline:
There is consensus that the UN is being “sidelined in an extraordinary way” in all major crises, a symptom and accelerator of multipolar disorder (38:46).

---

5. Europe’s Dilemma and the Multipolar World

Middle Powers at the Crossroads:
With the international order fracturing, Britain (and the EU) must reinvent themselves—either banding together for collective “hard power” or risking being relegated to the status of pawns in a tripartite world divided by US, Chinese, and Russian spheres.

• Blair underscores the primacy of “hard power” and warns against overreliance on new trade deals with China, whose goal is “to buy nothing from you” (40:34).
• Roland argues that unless Europe “grows its own superpower personality,” it will be relegated to “just an arena for competition, which is not comfortable at all” (41:52–42:59).

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• “We will not breathe a sigh of relief until… clear confirmation that Greenland will not be annexed in one way or another.”
  — Orla Yolsson, Greenlandic independence activist, read by James Rothwell (04:23)

• “If the annexation were to happen…it would just be the transfer from one colonial power to the other.”
  — James Rothwell (08:59)

• “We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.”
  — Mark Carney, Davos speech (25:04)

• “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”
  — Donald Trump (29:28)

• “You’re breaking a central principle by watching a country like Denmark being browbeaten in this way. It might be necessary, but it’s a terrible necessity.”
  — David Blair on the Greenland deal (22:18)

• “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do and we’ll do it in conjunction with the United Nations.”
  — Donald Trump (34:03)

• “If there’s one thing more important than staying on Trump’s side for Starmer, that’s the British permanent seat on the UN Security Council.”
  — David Blair (36:59)

• “Europe has to grow its own superpower personality. Otherwise, it’s just an arena for competition.”
  — Roland Oliphant (41:52)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Greenland deal and local response: 03:50–12:11
• Discussion of mineral rights and resources: 06:09–08:47
• Colonial legacy and identity struggles: 08:47–12:11
• Reporting from Nuuk – “postcard” description: 12:11–16:48
• David Blair’s assessment of the “shabby deal”: 20:20–22:54
• Carney’s speech clips and analysis: 23:44–29:28
• Trump’s response & “Board of Peace” debate: 29:28–34:31
• Decline and sidelining of the UN: 34:31–39:57
• Europe’s/UK’s strategy and future of “middle powers”: 39:57–42:59

---

Conclusion

This episode captures a pivotal moment where the postwar Western order looks to be breaking down: Greenland becomes a pawn in great-power competition, US allies navigate threats and reluctant accommodations, and Canada leads a call for a new middle-power coalition. The episode is rich in on-the-ground reporting, high-level analysis, and sharp exchanges—an essential listen (or read) for understanding the stakes and shifting sands of geopolitics in 2026.

Transcript

[Venetia Rainey]

The telegraph.

[Midi Health Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by Midi Health. Are you in midlife and feeling dismissed, unheard or just plain tired of the old healthcare system? You're not alone. For too long, women's serious midlife health issues have been trivialized, ignored and met with a just deal with it attitude. Many of us have been made to feel ashamed or forgotten. In fact, even today, 75% of women seeking care for menopause and perimenopause issues are left entirely untreated. It's time for a change. It's time for midi. MIDI is not just a health care provider, it's a women's telehealth clinic founded and supported by world class leaders in women's health. What sets MIDI apart? We are the only women's telehealth brand covered by major insurance companies, making high quality, expert care accessible and affordable for all women. Our clinicians provide one on one, face to face consultations where they truly listen to your unique needs. We we offer a full range of holistic, data driven solutions from hormonal therapies and weight loss protocols to lifestyle coaching and preventative health guidance. This isn't one size fits all care. This is care uniquely tailored for you. At midi, you will join our patients who feel seen, heard and prioritized. You will find that our mission is clear to help all women thrive in midlife, giving them access to the healthcare they deserve. Because we believe midlife isn't the middle at all. It's the beginning of your second act. Ready to feel your best and write your second act script? Visit join join midi.com today to book your personalized insurance covered virtual Visit. That's join MIDI.com MIDI the Care Women.

[Jerry Insurance Advertiser]

Deserve Are you noticing your car insurance rate creep up even without tickets or claims? You're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry handles the legwork by comparing quotes side by side from over 50 top insurers so you can confidently hit buy. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Jerry even tracks rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Don't settle for higher rates. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast today.

[David Blair]

I think it's a shabby deal. It may be necessary. It may be the only way out of this confrontation. But Denmark will be bullied and browbeaten into giving up some of its sovereign territory.

[Donald Trump]

We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars we end.

[James Rothwell]

Right now, all eyes are on Washington, but who's actually watching Europe at the moment?

[Venetia Rainey]

The deepening ties between China, Russia and North Korea would certainly have some in Washington concerned.

[Roland Oliphan]

And then Delhi has to sometimes use strong language.

[Donald Trump]

We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transitions.

[Venetia Rainey]

The IDF will continue to uphold the ceasefire agreement and will respond firmly to any violation of it. I'm Venetia Rainey. And I'm Roland Oliphan and this is Battle lines. It's Friday, January 23, 2026. We've got a corker of an episode for you today. Roland and I are in the studio together. Later on we're going to be joined by David Blair to discuss, well, the Is this the end of the West, Trump's speech yesterday, Board of peace today? We cover it all, really, don't we, Roland?

[Roland Oliphan]

We cover it all. But first to Greenland itself, where our intrepid correspondent James Rothwell is on the ground in Nuuk and has been speaking to Greenlanders themselves about what they make of being at the centre of the most remarkable geopolitical tug of war in recent years.

[Venetia Rainey]

James, welcome to Battle Lines. Let's start with the reporting this morning that this deal that we started to hear about last night has been struck and involves the US Having sovereign control over some of its bases. What do you make of that?

[James Rothwell]

Well, there's been quite a muted response, actually here in Greenland so far to reports of a deal. A lot of residents of Nuuk in particular feel slightly overwhelmed by the kind of absolutely enormous amount of international interest on what is basically a very small city of 20,000 people. There has been some reaction from Greenlanders. I'm just going to read out a quote from Orla Yolsson, who is a Greenlandic pro independence activist. He said in response to the deal last night, we will not breathe a sigh of relief until there is normalisation and Greenland, Denmark receive clear confirmation that Greenland will not be annexed in one way or another. The Telegraph is reporting this morning that this deal is going to allow the United States to designate parts of Greenland as sovereign base areas. And I think a key question question is how expansive that designation, if you like, is going to be. The big concern, of course, in Greenland would be the idea of wholesale annexation of Greenland. That definitely does not seem to be on the table anymore. The other point that's worth stressing is that the Americans already have a US Military base in Greenland, and diplomatically, there has never been a huge issue with them wanting to expand it or indeed put more equipment or troops in into Greenland in order to address NATO's security concerns about Russian and Chinese influence? Greenland is NATO territory. Denmark is, of course, also a NATO ally. And so there's never been a huge issue there. I think the big key question has always been about the question of identity and of ownership and this phrase annexation, which has certainly alarmed many in Greenland. And we're going to go out today and do some more reporting on this. I would anticipate that the key anxiety for many Greenlanders is going to be what this deal actually means in practice. If it's just about pockets of land being considered sovereign base areas, is that something that people can tolerate? And is there going to be a concern that this might be a prelude to another attempted land grab by the Trump administration, which is, of course, very unpredictable?

[Roland Oliphan]

James, what do we know about the mineral rights issue here? Because we're seeing some kind of mixed reporting and I'm personally a bit confused. I'm not sure if this deal allows the Americans rights to exploit mineral deposits there. Is that part of this?

[James Rothwell]

I'm not sure, Ronan. I haven't seen the text of the deal either. My understanding on minerals in Greenland is that I spoke to a recently spoke to a Danish security expert on this who said that the value of the minerals deposits has been slightly overblown in the sense that the deposits are very, very difficult to access, that the land and the terrain is extremely hostile. Now, of course, the Danish perspective on this might well be, Roland, that they would like to, you know, sort of have that narrative out there, because, of course, it's currently their territory, but the whole issue of minerals has been very murky. I did speak to a Greenlander yesterday who did air that concern. He was talking about uranium deposits, and there are rich uranium deposits in Greenland. He was concerned that that was going to be the sort of true underlying goal of this. But the key issue, I think, with Greenland is that these raw minerals are very, very difficult to access. And my understanding is it would require very, very substantial investment and logistical know how in order to access them.

[Venetia Rainey]

Yeah, I was looking into this a bit this week because I was going to be speaking to Greenland's energy minister, but she had to cancel on the same day as Trump's speech. Perhaps understandably, but Greenland holds an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of rare earth elements. It's ranked eighth globally. According to the US Geological Survey, 25 raw materials from a list of over 30 that are deemed critical by the EU are present in Greenland but as you say, James, these resources are actually really hard to get to. There aren't roads or trains or transport links between a lot of these places around Greenland you have to fly. And so all of the infrastructure to mine them, to process them, would have to be flown in. There are two big projects at the moment, Tanbriz and Kvanfeld, but both of them have not been successfully exploited, really. Tanbriz is mired in a legal dispute with an American company, Critical Metals Corp. And so there's really only two small mines up and running. So there are huge resources to be exploited. Some people suggest it might be as much as 25% of the world's needs of rare earths. But we're so far from where we can actually get to them and crucially, process them, which China does, over 90% of around the world. Trump actually mentioned that minerals aspect in his speech yesterday, which we'll come on to in more detail, and he pivoted quickly away from it. He said, it's not about this. It's all about Russia and China and protecting this vital strategic territory in this sort of fast changing world. What's the sense of Greenland? Do they feel like they're in the middle of this battle between Russia, China.

[James Rothwell]

And the U.S. i would say that many Greenlanders don't feel that they're caught in a kind of tug of war yet between the US on one side and Russia and China on the other. They definitely feel that they're caught in a tug of war, particularly the Inuit community caught in a tug of war between two colonial powers. I think there is deep anxiety in the Inuit community in Greenland about what colonial rule did to their community, both under the Americans and under the Danes. And we're talking about a long history from their experience of quite profound trauma of living under. Under colonization. I did detect a bit of a sense of kind of bitter resignation from some Inuit people that I spoke to yesterday who kind of basically were putting the point across that they've lived under some form of colonial rule for as long as they can remember. And there was a concern that if the annexation were to happen, now it looks like it's not on the table, but if it were to happen, it would just be the transfer from one colonial power to the other. As we've talked about, there is also a big independence movement in Greenland. The trouble when this big row with the Trump administration started was that a political party called Nalarak, which is a pro independence party, according to its critics, tried to make some hay of the situation. They saw this as an opportunity to bang the independence drum. They were perceived to be kind of flirting with the idea of Trump annexation in order to advance their own goal of independence. They then realized that the Trump administration had all sorts of designs of its own on Greenland and perhaps didn't seem that interested in what they had to say. They then joined a joint statement of all five of the political parties in Greenland, stating very clearly that they want self determination, that they don't want to be subject to the whims of any other country, whether it be Denmark or the United States. So there's definitely a sense of them being caught in a kind of colonial tug of war. It is also true that there has been an increase of Chinese patrol ships in the Arctic region, and Russia is definitely looking to increase its presence in the Arctic. It's trying to reactivate Soviet era bases. It's building up its nuclear weapons stockpile on the Kola Peninsula. So there's no question that there's expanded Russian military activity and to a lesser extent, Chinese activity in the Arctic region. The key kind of contention and controversy is whether any of that has got much to do with Greenland. When you talk to Danish security experts, they point out, for example, that this is not true, as President Trump claimed, that Greenland has got Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. One of the things I obviously did when I got here was just to sort of have a look around the coast and see whether anything of that nature might be visible, you know, just in case we'd all missed it. And President Trump was right all along. And of course, the only thing you can see are fishing boats, a very small number of fishing boats for that, and the occasional Danish coast guard patrol ship. So we're in quite a weird situation where on the NATO side of the argument, they want to say, and they have said, yes, it's absolutely true, that there's growing threats to the Arctic by Russia and China. The contention relates to this idea that Greenland specifically has been covered by Russian and Chinese ships. That does not certainly seem to be the case. The two issues perhaps have been conflated by the Trump administration to advance the goal of taking over the island, perhaps, as we said earlier, to get the natural resources.

[Roland Oliphan]

I was wondering if you could just describe the place, really paint as a postcard from Nook and Greenland, because it's an extraordinary place. It's extremely rare that people get to go there and have a look. Can you just put us there for a few moments?

[James Rothwell]

Greenland is an absolutely remarkable place. The first thing that you notice when you get off the plane is this absolutely brutal Arctic wind that sort of whips across you, kind of rakes your whole body deep into your bones, right through your clothing. It's something that I was definitely not ready for. I packed all of my winter gear and thought, yes, I'm going to be okay. I got off the plane, I'm sort of standing there shivering a little bit. I can see, you know, sheer walls of ice to my left and on my right I can see all of these Greenlanders with their red and white flags who've come to welcome the foreign minister who's just come back from her visit to the United States. And I'm feeling very well prepared, feeling very proud of myself. And then the Arctic wind started, Roland, and it just absolutely froze me to the bone. We got in, in a taxi with a very friendly taxi driver. I observed that it was quite cold and he said, oh, this is not one of the cold days, my friend. This is actually a rather mild day you're in for. You're in for a bit of a time. And I said, thank you very much indeed for warning me about that. You drive down into Nuuk itself, a city of about 20,000 residents. It's a very, very tourism heavy economy. People want to go on kayak trips in the fjords, people want to go deep sea fishing, people want to ride around on dog sleighs, that sort of thing. But there's also a really, really big fishing economy. And if you go down to the coast, you can see these, these really, really hardy guys who are up very, very early in the morning, sort of five, six o' clock in the morning, it's going to be pitch black for those guys until like 10 o' clock when the sun comes up, heading out on these speedboats to go and get the catch. And the weather is so cold that they have to scrape like mountains of snow off their boat before they can actually get into it and kind of ride do their fishing. And I call them fishermen, but they're kind of fishermen hunters because they're not just fishing, you know, with nets, obviously, but they're also, they're also looking to get, shoot birds out of the sky as well with firearms. So they're more like hunter fishermen. A very, very dangerous and you know, to the sort of, to a sort of pencil neck like me, very exciting sort of occupation to have. And the other point I'd make about it, Roland, is that, you know, the picture postcards are very accurate. This is the one of those very, very rare occasions where you land in a place and it looks exactly like it looks on the postcard. You've got the delightful wooden Nordic huts, the fishing huts in all these bright colors. Everything's buried under mountains of snow. You know, you can. You can see the Arctic wind kind of whipping up snow and dust on the pavement in front of you as you walk around. Everyone's developed this kind of like this. There's a lot of foreigners out here at the moment, and I've noticed that everyone's kind of developed what I call kind of like the tourism gate, which is when you're wearing like two or three coats on top of you because you can't handle the cold weather, and you're sort of shuffling like a penguin because you've got so many layers on. So that's what most of the people walking around on the streets look like. But as I said before, it's not, you know, it's not just about the tourism. It's not just about the fishing. It's also a town where I've noticed quite a bit of tension between the Inuit community and the Danes who live here as well. We talked earlier about the legacy of colonialism. It's a very, very big political issue here, too. It doesn't map directly onto the row over the US annexation of Greenland because that's, as we've seen, turned into a kind of internal. A sort of internal NATO row. But that's part of the history, too. And of course, the final thing is that, you know, the sunset is unlike anything I've ever seen before. Sun goes down very early, I think, about 3 o' clock it did yesterday, you know, and you just. The entire. Or, you know, there's the sort of frozen Arctic waters and these huge walls of ice. Everything just gets bathed in this deep orange grow. It's very, very picturesque and it's very peaceful. It feels like a town where not much happens. But of course, that's why I think it's been so jarring for nuke residents at the moment to experience this absolutely massive influx of politicians and the foreign media. I think it's a town where many would be quite content to be left to doing a bit of tourism and fishing. And it's become. It's been the epicenter of this very, very ugly geopolitical spat. And I think, quite frankly, you know, a lot of the very, very friendly and welcoming Greenlanders that we've spoken to here will be. Will be quite pleased to see the back of us, actually, because it has been quite overwhelming for, like, I said. A very small city of 20,000 people to have this huge influx of foreigners and international attention.

[Roland Oliphan]

Coming up at Davos this week, Donald Trump and the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid out rival and very different visions for the future of the world.

[Jerry Insurance Advertiser]

You know what's wild? Most people are still overpaying for car insurance just because it's a pain to switch. That's why there's Jerry. Jerry's the only app that compares rates from over 50 insurance in minutes and helps you switch fast with no spam calls or hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Before you renew your car insurance policy, do yourself a favor, download the Jerry app or head to Jerry AI Acast.

[Grainger Advertiser]

If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift and you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Midi Health Advertiser]

This podcast is supported by Midi Health Are you in midlife and feeling dismissed, unheard or just plain tired of the old healthcare system? You're not alone. For too long, women's serious midlife health issues have been trivialized, ignored and met with a just deal with it attitude. Many of us have been made to feel ashamed or forgotten. In fact, even today, 75% of women seeking care for menopause and perimenopause issues are left entirely untreated. It's time for a change. It's time for midi. MIDI is not just a healthcare provider, it's a women's telehealth clinic founded and supported by world class leaders in women's health. What sets MIDI apart? We are the only women's telehealth brand covered by major insurance companies, making high quality, expert care accessible and affordable for all women. Our clinicians provide one on one face to face consultations where they truly listen to your unique needs. We offer a full range of holistic, data driven solutions from hormonal therapies and weight loss protocols to lifestyle coaching and preventative health guidance. This isn't one size fits all care. This is care uniquely tailored for you. At midi, you will join our patients who feel seen, heard and prioritized. You will find that our mission is clear to help all women thrive in midlife, giving them access to the healthcare they deserve. Because we believe midlife isn't the middle at all. It's the beginning of your second act. Ready to feel your best and write your second act script? Visit join midi.com today to book your personalized insurance covered virtual visit. That's joinmitty.com midi the Care Women deserve.

[Roland Oliphan]

Welcome back. You're listening to Battle Lines Telegraph's foreign policy and defense podcast. The conversation this week is of course dominated by what on earth has happened around Greenland over the past 24 hours. I'm very glad to say we've got. Well, Venetia's in the studio with me. We've also got David Blair, our chief foreign commentator. David, could we bring you in here? Because I know you've been following this closely and I think you might actually have a claim to having solved this crisis yourself, because it looks like the deal on the table is very close to something that you proposed in the column last week.

[David Blair]

Oddly enough, on the 13th of January, I wrote a piece suggesting that the possible solution to the Greenland problem would be to give America sovereign bases on the island, just as Britain has sovereign bases on Cyprus. And last night we learned that that may well be on the table as part of the so called framework deal, which Donald Trump said that he'd agreed. And if that does go ahead, then the one American base that's on the island now would presumably be converted into American sovereign territory. And perhaps some of the old bases that America used to have, but which it subsequently closed might also become American territory. And that will give Donald Trump the satisfaction of what he really wants, which is being able to plant flags in the snow and claim new territory for the United States. What I was thinking of when I wrote that piece is that none of his public reasons for why he wants Greenland make any sense at all when he says that it's vital for our national security. Well, they can already do whatever they want on Greenland. From a military security point of view, none of that makes any sense. Not even the critical minerals argument makes much sense, partly because the costs of extraction are very high and partly because if American mining companies want to go and operate in Greenland, then no one's going to stop them. They can get the licenses. They can do it. The only explanation that made any sense was that he wanted territory and the sovereign base areas idea gives him that. It gives him territory, but of course, only a tiny fraction of the whole of Greenland.

[Roland Oliphan]

Have you just saved the west or is the west still hold below the waterline?

[David Blair]

Well, I Can't claim to have been the first to think of this idea. I'm sure other people thought of it before I did. And I have to say there is no evidence that any of the decision makers here read what I wrote.

[Roland Oliphan]

David Blair saved the West. Or did you? No, I mean, my point is the deal, is this a good deal, or is this still a bit of a shabby place for us to be?

[David Blair]

I think it's a shabby deal. It may be necessary, it may be the only way out of this confrontation. But it's still a terrible thing because however you dress it up, a sovereign state, Denmark, will be bullied and browbeaten into giving up some of its sovereign territory. The fact that the territory in question may not be very big, it may be remote, it may be uninhabited, all of that doesn't matter. The point is you're breaking a central principle by watching a country like Denmark being browbeaten in this way. And that's a terrible thing. It might be necessary, but it's a terrible necessity.

[Venetia Rainey]

Well, that brings us very neatly onto Mark Carney's speech. Right. The Canadian Prime Minister, former British bank of England governor, he gave this speech which I feel like will come to be seen as moment defining, where he essentially spoke about the challenge that middle countries such as Canada, such as Britain, such as France, many other European countries are facing in this moment. And he refers to Hegemons. He doesn't say Trump or America's name, but he refers to Hegemons.

[Jerry Insurance Advertiser]

He.

[Venetia Rainey]

He starts off with this story, an essay by Czech dissident Vaslav Havel. And we're going to play you a sort of lengthy. A couple of lengthy clips from his speech. It was 70 minutes in total. Definitely go out and watch the full thing, if you can. Compared to Trump's 1 hour, 10 minutes, he packs a lot more in, I think. Here are a few selected clips from that speech. Speech which we've edited together.

[Narrator (Vaclav Havel excerpt)]

In 1978, the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called the Power of the Powerless. And in it he asked a simple question. How did the communist system sustain itself? And his answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, the shopkeeper places a sign in his window. Workers of the world unite. He doesn't believe it, no one does. But he places the sign anyway, to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false. Havel called this living within a lie. This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. This bargain no longer works. Let me be we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is. We are taking the sign out of the window. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation. The powerful have their power, but we have something too. The capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together. That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us. Thank you very much.

[Venetia Rainey]

David, what did you make of his speech?

[David Blair]

Well, first of all, a bitter resentment because when I was writing speeches for a Prime Minister and three foreign secretaries, this was a speech I wanted to write. And in fact I almost did. And I even had the Harvl metaphor. The Harvl quote.

[Venetia Rainey]

Really?

[David Blair]

No, I even had the Vaclav Havel quote, but the Foreign Office didn't really like that kind of. And I never actually, I never actually put it down on paper. But it was a speech I wanted to write. Anyway. He's done it. He's done it well, done him. I mean, at last we're recognizing reality. The rules based international system, a phrase which I waged a personal campaign to expunge from the Prime Minister's speeches, has not existed for a while in any real sense, in the sense that it doesn't constrain every country and never really has. And we should recognize that reality. And we're now living in a world in which power reigns supreme and medium sized countries need to get together and take whatever steps they can to avoid them being pushed around by the big powers. One good sign is that Europe did unite behind Denmark and Trump did not succeed in dividing Europe over his territorial claims on Greenland. And that perhaps is one of the factors behind the agreement yesterday. So Carney's speech was a blast of reality and a very welcome one.

[Venetia Rainey]

It was welcome, wasn't it? It felt so refreshing to hear someone finding the language and the story I wasn't aware of Havel the language, the story to tell, to express what we're going through at the moment, because I think we've all been able to understand that something seismic is changing. But to really be able to pinpoint how and what and also to feel like there was a positive alternative vision being offered that middle countries could band together, how exactly that happens and the practicalities of that. A discussion for another day. But to feel like there might be another way, rather than just kowtowing to Trump and accepting that this is the way it's going to be. I found it very inspiring. Roland, what did you make of his speech?

[Roland Oliphan]

Yeah, similar. I mean, it's refreshing to hear someone call a spade a spade. I mean, some of us have been seeing that spade for what it was and pulling our hair out for some years in various ways about this. I mean, you know, he talks about the breakdown of the international order and stuff. I mean, since war returned to Europe in 2014, I've been astounded at the way. The way people kind of cling to platitudes. I suppose what we could loosely call the establishment clung to platitudes and sometimes and just live through euphemism in a way, because there is a fear of saying things bluntly. It signals a rupture. And I think it's going to be interesting to see who rallies to Mark Carney's call and whether it does signal the creation of a new, I don't know, an unaligned block. If you want to take some kind of Cold War terminology. Donald Trump was very critical of it in his speech yesterday. He singled it out. He said, oh, it wasn't a very nice speech. Mark's been very ungrateful.

[Donald Trump]

We're building a golden dome that's going to, just by its very nature, going to be defending Canada. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also, but they're not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful. But they should be grateful to us, Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.

[Roland Oliphan]

And then he reiterated. What I found really interesting about Donald Trump's speech yesterday was partly that we've just been discussing the first half of this program, that he's done a bit of a U turn on everything he said on that speech. Which was like, I want the whole of Greenland and I want to own it, and that's what's going to happen. And he backed that up. He took military force off the table. He said, I'm not going to use military force. But he then said, you know, I don't have to use military force because I've got got financial and economic threats to use. And then he just went through a series of anecdotes about times when he has twisted other leaders arms into doing exactly what they said they wouldn't do by using threats of tariffs, of economic punishment. And he told this story about Switzerland where he said, you know, I was having this negotiation. That was when I realized that Switzerland wouldn't be Switzerland if it wasn't for us. The message was, to the rest of the world, the rest of the west, you only exist because we, we let you, so you better get in line. And I think it's a really profound clash. So just because we've walked back this crisis about Greenland, just because there isn't going to be a US military invasion of Greenland now, doesn't mean the damage hasn't already been done. There's a fundamental breach of trust between America's traditional allies and America itself. And Mark Carney kind of, I think, elucidated the kind of gulf in values or the gulf in outlook that defines that gap. And if that breach could become much, much wider as the years and decades roll on, or there may be a way of keeping the breach relatively narrow. It really is a moment of always a rupture. Rupture was the uc.

[Venetia Rainey]

That's what Carney called it.

[Roland Oliphan]

Yeah. Rupture in the world, A rupture in the Western Alliance.

[Venetia Rainey]

And Carney didn't call out Trump or the US by name. He just referred to Hegemons. And I just thought that was if he was sort of speaking about bullies. It was just so powerful that he didn't even bother to call Trump out by name. But Trump singled him up by name. So he was clearly riled by it, talking about this sort of realignment of the world order. We should also talk about the fact that today, third day of Davos, Trump held this big Board of Peace meeting, which you guys were watching being live streamed shortly before we came into this recording. He had a bunch of world leaders up there, Javier Milei from Argentina, Viktor Orban from Hungary, and they signing up to this. What's kind of being pitched as an alternative to the UN well, but you need to pay a billion for a permanent seat and Putin's involved.

[Roland Oliphan]

There's a lot of confusion about that. I think it was the US Ambassador to Israel said, no, no, there's been a misunderstanding. It's not. You don't pay a billion dollars for a lifetime seat. You can contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza or something.

[Venetia Rainey]

Well, there's sort of three echelons, right? You've got the sort of Executive Board of Peace and then you've got a Gaza executive board and then you've got a sort of Gaza day to day board, which is Palestinian technocrats.

[Roland Oliphan]

I will confess I haven't read the layout and details of the Board of Peace. What did strike me about Donald Trump's inaugural address to the so called Board of Peace is that it was pretty vacuous. I mean, it was largely a repetition of the speech he made the day before and the speeches he'd made before. And the crux of it was he's stopped eight wars. The war in Ukraine wouldn't have happened if he was President. He's stopped an invasion on the US Southern border, he's got a massive mandate at home, the economy's going down gangbusters after Joe Biden tried to destroy it. All the things you've heard before. And then when it came to the Board of Peace itself, yes, he briefly referenced Gaza and that's the one place where this has a defined role that you just described. But he also talked in much more kind of sweepingly ambitious terms about bringing peace to the world and about how we can, you know, we're going to go, we'll get Gaza done, we'll move on to other problems and you guys are all stars and we'll do it. But that part of it is very underfund find and very unclear how it's meant to operate. He talked about maybe we'll work alongside the United Nations. So he didn't talk about replacing the United nations, but he said the United nations, you know, it's got a lot of potential, but it hasn't really used it.

[Donald Trump]

Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do and we'll do it in conjunction with the United Nations. You know, I've always said the United nations has got tremendous potential, has not used it, but there's tremendous potential in the United nations and you have some great people at the United nations, but so far it hasn't, you know, on the eight wars that I ended, I never spoke to the United nations about any of them.

[Roland Oliphan]

No one will disagree with that. There's a huge amount of frustration with the United Nations. But the observation I would make is that the United nations shortcomings stem from the fact that it is the sum of its parts. It's a club of sovereign states, and they don't often agree on things, and that's why you get deadlocks, and that's why it's difficult to get things done. And no other multinational multilateral organization is going to escape that problem, unless it's not really a multilateral organization, unless it's an organization with a hierarchy and there's one person leading it. He's going to tell people what to do.

[Venetia Rainey]

One person being Trump, who will have an indefinite term. It's not linked to the US President. It's Trump, and he'll have an indefinite term and has a veto over absolutely everything.

[Roland Oliphan]

Is that what's in the. Donald Trump has a veto over everything. Well, there you are.

[Venetia Rainey]

And it's not linked to the US Election post.

[Roland Oliphan]

But the people who were there. You had Viktor Orban from Hungary. Populist likes Trump. You had Milei from Argentina. Populist likes Trump. You always had Kosovo, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia. I think the Saudis showed up. I don't have the exhaustive list, but it's a huge array of countries. You don't necessarily have a huge amount in common with each other. Most of them don't have much of a connection to Gaza. But there seem to be two things. One is staying on good terms with Donald Trump. Bet that's why Kosovo was there. US Critical to their security. And the other thing? Yeah, a kind of frustration with the United nations system and the way things are. But do you really think that Viktor Orban is just going to do whatever Donald Trump says if it happens to be something that he thinks goes against his interests or Hungary's interests? Probably not.

[Venetia Rainey]

Well, that's why I think we should talk about the only people we've had who've said no. The UK and France.

[Roland Oliphan]

Russia and China didn't show up either. So all the P5 didn't show up?

[Venetia Rainey]

They didn't show up. But we've had reports. Trump has said that Russia has said yes. China has said it's considering. Russia hasn't confirmed that. But Starmer has definitively said no. He said that today. Macron has already said no. There was some very good reporting by Henry Bodkin talking about how the UK and France really stand to lose out from this because they have permanent seats on the current UN Security Council on this Board of peace. There's no guarantee that they would have any Bigger say than any other country. You can talk about the merits or not of the UN Security Council. But David, before you leave us, I'm interested in your thoughts about is Starmer playing this the right way for the UK because as you mentioned, this is basically about staying on the right side of Trump. Starmer's walking a very fine line by declining to be on the board of peace. Is he risking all of that?

[David Blair]

He might be, but it's worth it. Because if there's one thing that's even more important than staying on the right side of Trump, for Keir Starmer, that's the British permanent seat on the UN Security Council. That's probably the single greatest diplomatic asset that the United Kingdom possesses. And anything that would dilute that, bypass it, water it down, is something that he can't have anything to do with. And in a sense, that even outweighs his personal relationship with Trump. So I'm not surprised he did that. And it's right that he did that. But I do observe, I mean, and it's not a good thing, but it's just true that the UN is being sidelined in an extreme, extraordinary way, not just by this latest border peace proposal, but over the last few years, the UN has been thrust out of almost every big international confrontation or crisis or problem. So you have a situation where no one believes that the UN is going to play any substantive role in post conflict stabilization or reconstruction of Gaza. Not so long ago, that would have been a core function of the un. Now there'll be nothing there. And I saw the other day the Israelis having done their best to paralyze the UN Relief and Works Agency which looks after Palestinians, the Israelis actually bulldozed its headquarters in East Jerusalem the other day. Meanwhile, poor old Antonio Guterres, he was here in London actually the other day, as it happens, I met a diplomat from another country, an important country, a little while ago, and he said to me, who's going to be the next Secretary General of the United Nations? And then he just said, who cares? Doesn't matter anymore. We don't care. None of this is good. You know, all of it is bad. But we have to recognize reality.

[Roland Oliphan]

There's definitely a sense that this Board of Peace, even if it is a vacuous thing, there is a degree to which it does reflect that decline of the. It's kind of a symptom of the decline of the United nations or its sidelining. But I mean, I'd argue that, I mean, it's the United nations, it's a Sum of its parts. When big countries wanted to do things, you know, the P5 could always veto something. You know, the United nations was sidelined during the invasion of Iraq, essentially. You know, it's a long story this, and it's also always been really a place for. For rivals to talk, if you like. And I would add that what David just said about the permanent seat there, that also applies to Russia and it also applies to China and the Russians in particular, just because I know a bit about them. They have a machine, a diplomatic machine, that is evolved and designed to operate within these international institutions, to dominate them, to turn them to Russia's national interest. And I think they would be extremely cautious about sidelining or sabotaging something that they know how to use and which they understand as part of their own power project.

[Venetia Rainey]

What does Europe do in all of this with the sands literally shifting underneath us? And we'll speak from a sort of UK based position here. How do they band together in order to make themselves this sort of club of middle countries that Carney's suggesting? I mean, Carney was coming at it from a very practical view. He's just come back from a trip to China where he's made a trade deal that goes directly against Trump's sort of worldview that we should be getting ready for the next war against China. Although he's also sort of suggesting that we just divide it up into hemispheres and maybe it's all fine. Should Europe be making a deal with China and being pragmatic that we need to hedge our bets a bit and divorce ourselves from this American reliance?

[David Blair]

I'm very skeptical about any trade deals with China for the simple reason that China's stated policy is to buy nothing from us or anybody made in China, as their policy means what it says. So I don't see how you can trade successfully with a vast country whose policy goal ultimately is to buy nothing from you. So I don't think you don't want to leap out of the frying pan and into the fire. What you need to do is the Europe already has the European Union. I know we're appearing on a telegraph platform, but leaving the European Union was a strategic error for Britain. I think I'm allowed to say that that's always been my view, and events in recent months have only reinforced that view. But what needs to happen is very much, as Mark Carney describes the EU and the middle powers outside the eu, principally Britain and Canada, but others as well, need to maximize their own assets and they need to build up their hard power. And they need to accept that they're now living in a world that's governed overwhelmingly by power and respond accordingly, which they can do. One important thing is there's no Council of Despair here. We can secure our interests in this international setting, and we should, and I hope we will.

[Roland Oliphan]

You put this point, Venetia, about kind of hedging bets a bit, spreading the risk and so on? Yes, of course, but that's not the answer. I was speaking to a very thoughtful academic the other day who used the phrase grow its own superpower personality. And the reason for that is it's quite blunt. I think we are in a multipolar world, which means another word for that is spheres of influence world. America takes the Western Hemisphere, Russia gets the former Soviet Union and China gets, you know, whichever swathe of the parts of of the Indo Pacific that seems to be the vision, this tripartite division. The problem for Europe in that is that Europe, Africa, parts of the Middle east, parts of the Indo Pacific are undefined within that division. Which means if we are not going to be a superpower ourselves on the world stage, we're just an arena for competition, which is not a comfortable place to be in whatsoever. That's the world we're looking at.

[Venetia Rainey]

I think that's a great place to end. That's all for today's episode.

[Roland Oliphan]

We'll be back on Monday for our usual start the week instalment. Until then, that was Battle Lines. Goodbye Goodbye.

[Venetia Rainey]

Battle Lines is an original podcast from the Telegraph, created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Venetia, Rainey and Roland. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Battle Lines on your preferred podcast app. And if you have a moment, leave a review as it really helps others find the show. To stay on top of all of our news, subscribe to the Telegraph, sign up to our Dispatchers newsletter or listen to our sister podcast Ukraine, the latest. You can get in touch directly by emailing battle linestelegraph.co.uk or contact us on X. You can find our handles in the show. Notes the producer is Peter Shevlin. The Executive producer is Louisa Wells.

[Grainger Advertiser]

If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift and you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[MeUndies Advertiser]

Flowers die in three days. Matching underwear from Meundies. That's a gift that lasts. Meundies creates matching prints for couples and friends. Same adorable designs and different cuts for each of you. All made from their signature ultramodal fabric that feels impossibly soft. With 30 million pairs sold and 90,000 five star reviews, MeUndies matching prints are the perfect gift. Valentine's Day is February 14th, so don't wait. Get exclusive deals up to 50% off at MeUndies. Com Acast Code acast. That's meundies. Com Acast Code acast.