Podcast Summary: Bulwark Takes – “Retired General Breaks Down Trump’s Davos Speech | Command Post”
Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Hosts: Ben Parker (Bulwark), Mark Hertling (Retired Lt. Gen., Bulwark Contributor)
Date: January 22, 2026
Episode Overview
This episode of Bulwark Takes (Command Post) centers on retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling’s analysis of former President Trump’s speech at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, especially his unusual focus on Greenland and its strategic value. The hosts dissect Trump’s claims, discuss international and military reactions—drawing on Hertling’s contacts among European generals—and address the alarming signals surrounding potential military actions both abroad (regarding Greenland) and at home (related to domestic troop deployments). The discussion combines strategic military insights, political analysis, and commentary on U.S. alliances and the civil-military divide.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Immediate Reactions to Trump’s Davos Speech
-
International Military Concerns (02:25):
- Hertling reports receiving concerned messages from European military counterparts questioning if Trump’s approach reflects true American national security strategy. He admits, “It’s tough for me, even as a retired general, to say, oh, hell no, we don’t support this” (02:25).
-
Civil-Military Divide (01:31):
- The importance of civilian understanding of military issues is highlighted: “…Only 1% of Americans serve in the armed forces, but what those people do is a big effect on the rest of us and vice versa...” (01:31).
2. Breaking Down the Greenland Focus
-
Trump’s Geographic and Strategic Claims (04:38):
- Trump positions Greenland as “a vast, almost entirely uninhabited and undeveloped territory sitting undefended in a key strategic location between the United States, Russia and China” (04:38).
- Hertling corrects and contextualizes: U.S. strategic interests in Greenland revolve around its radar base (Thule), long-standing cooperation with Denmark, and the well-established leasing system—“He’d much rather own it as opposed to lease it… that just knocked my socks off.” (04:56-07:17).
-
Confusion Between Iceland and Greenland (08:03):
- Trump conflates Iceland and Greenland and boasts about being called “Daddy” by NATO figures, then refers to Greenland as “a piece of ice, cold and poorly located” (08:03).
- Hertling dispels the framing as a “real estate salesman pitch" and underlines the actual importance of Greenland in NATO’s cooperative security architecture, not solo American ownership (08:39).
-
Implications for U.S. Alliances (07:17-10:22):
- Trump's attitude on leasing versus owning puts allied basing agreements worldwide in an awkward light, possibly spooking partner nations.
3. Military Force Language & Historical Distortions
- Use of Force and Historical Revisionism (10:55):
- Trump claims: “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force… But I won’t do that… After we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians and others In World War II, we gave [Greenland] back to [Denmark]…” (10:55).
- Hertling calls this “incomprehensible,” pointing out there was “no connection to World War II history and the things he said in terms of taking it and giving it back…” (11:48).
- He notes, “Those are not the words of a great ally…”—referencing similar bellicose language from White House officials (11:48-13:52).
4. Trump’s View of Military Action: “Clean, Perfect, Immaculate”
-
Preference for Flawless, Low-Risk Strikes (16:23):
- Trump touts “perfectly executed” operations—Soleimani, al-Baghdadi, and even Operation Warp Speed (16:23).
- Parker asserts Trump favors actions promising quick wins and minimal American casualties, possibly explaining his retreat from Greenland saber-rattling: “He likes these operations… accomplished very specific, very finite, with minimal retaliation…” (17:13).
-
Military Reality Check (17:48):
- Hertling emphasizes the vast gulf between targeted strikes and a major military occupation like Greenland: “Invading a foreign country… is a whole lot bigger than anything he’s ever done before…” and “there will always be, you know, the enemy gets a vote…” (17:48-21:42).
5. NATO, World War 3, and Russia-Ukraine
-
Trump’s (Contradictory) Deterrence Fears (21:54):
- Trump remarks, “I think Putin… could have been a World War 3. If you want to know the truth… we’re not going to have World War Three” (21:54).
- Parker: “When he’s presented with options… tightly controlled… he’s very trigger happy… But all of a sudden someone says… World War Three… that clearly spooks him.” (22:21).
- Hertling lauds the Biden administration’s cautious but savvy support for Ukraine, which “walked the very fine line between defending Ukraine while providing equipment for Ukraine” (23:13). He shares a grim update from a Kyiv contact about the humanitarian toll of Russian strikes (24:35).
-
On Trump’s Susceptibility to Russian Threats (26:08):
- “Trump believes [Putin].” (26:23) Parker and Hertling agree that Trump takes Russian nuclear threats at face value, echoing them without critical assessment.
6. Domestic Military Alert: Troops Prepping for Minneapolis
-
Unit Selection Oddities (27:01):
- The Pentagon has put elements of the 11th Airborne Division (Alaska) and military police from North Carolina on possible deployment to Minnesota.
- Hertling critiques the choice: “It makes no sense… to put on a prepare to deploy order… from Alaska… when there are at least four other bases, major bases, that have troops closer to Minnesota” (27:01).
-
Implications of Military Police Orders (28:29):
- Bringing in military police hints at considering the Insurrection Act: “When you put a military police brigade on prepare to deploy orders, that means he’s thinking about using them as part of an active force, which means the Insurrection Act has been called.” (28:29)
-
Potential Consequences for Military Personnel (30:02):
- Parker and Hertling discuss the perilous position service members are put in—forced to choose between obeying potentially illegal orders or refusing them.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On Trump’s Greenland Logic:
- Hertling: “I have no idea what he just said, Ben. Truthfully, there is no connection to World War II history and the things he said in terms of taking it and giving it back.” (11:48)
- Parker: “He did stand out to me that he said [Greenland] was poorly located, which, if it’s so poorly located, why do we want it?” (10:22)
-
On Trump’s Approach to Military Action:
- Trump: “We did a lot. I did a lot. A lot of big things, all perfectly executed.” (16:23)
- Hertling: “When you’re putting conventional forces on the ground, it’s a whole different ballgame.” (21:42)
-
On Domestic Deployment Concerns:
- Hertling: “It makes no sense… that the Pentagon would put an airborne division that’s 3,000 miles away on P.T.D.O just makes no sense whatsoever to me.” (27:01)
- Hertling: “When you put a military police brigade on prepare to deploy orders, that means he’s thinking about using them as part of an active force, which means the Insurrection Act has been called.” (28:29)
Timestamps for Critical Segments
- Intro: Civil-Military Divide – 01:31
- International Military Reactions – 02:25, 02:56
- Trump’s Greenland Speech (First Clip) – 04:38
- Strategic Value & U.S. Access to Greenland – 04:56-07:17
- Iceland/Greenland Confusion – 08:03
- Leasing vs. Owning Military Bases – 07:17-10:22
- Trump on Use of Force/WWII History – 10:55, 11:48
- Trump’s “Immaculate” Military Operations – 16:23, 17:13
- Reality of Military Interventions – 17:48-21:42
- World War 3 Fears and Ukraine – 21:54, 22:21, 23:13, 24:35
- On Taking Russian Threats at Face Value – 26:08
- Domestic Military Deployments to Minneapolis – 27:01, 28:29
- MP Brigades and the Insurrection Act – 28:29-30:02
Tone & Style
The conversation was frank, analytical, and sprinkled with dry humor and disbelief at some of Trump’s more outlandish statements. Hertling offers grounded, detailed military context; Parker brings a journalist’s skepticism and strategic insight. The tone throughout remained urgent but accessible, striving to clarify complex military-political intersections for a civilian audience.
Conclusion
This episode exposes the deep disconnect between Trump-era rhetoric, military realities, and the consequences for both America’s alliances abroad and domestic stability at home. Hertling’s expert perspective underscores why such discussions matter for all Americans, urging vigilance and informed engagement across the civilian-military divide.