Casey Michel: “Consider the immediate fallout of the U.S. announcing in the not-too-distant future that it was annexing Greenland. Domestically, little would change; as an American territory, Greenland would only receive nonvoting representation in Congress, and little more. Internationally, however, the reactions would be swift, destabilizing, and wildly detrimental to American interests and influence.”

“The quickest response would come out of Denmark, and out of Europe more broadly. Danish officials have been unequivocal in their opposition to Trump’s threats. But if and when an American flag rises over Nuuk, U.S.-Danish relations—that is, America’s links with one of its closest European allies—would immediately shatter. While Denmark would hardly offer an armed response, European nations would close ranks in support of Danish partners. More importantly, NATO would be, for all intents and purposes, dead.”

U.S. forces seized a Russian-flagged tanker Wednesday that had evaded a naval blockade near Venezuela, the Washington Post reports.

“Congressional Republicans say they’re confident that whatever happens next in Venezuela will work out in Americans’ favor,” NOTUS reports.

“Their rosy outlook defies the lack of detail available about what it means that the U.S. is ‘running’ Venezuela. And there’s a long list of U.S. involvement in regime changes that Democrats, and even some conservatives, are pointing to as reason to take a more measured tone. But still, many Republicans say it’s different this time.”

New York Times: “Under a little-known Cold War agreement, the United States already enjoys sweeping military access in Greenland. Right now, the United States has one base in a very remote corner of the island. But the agreement allows it to ‘construct, install, maintain, and operate’ military bases across Greenland, ‘house personnel’ and ‘control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.’”

“It was signed in 1951 by the United States and Denmark, which colonized Greenland more than 300 years ago and still controls some of its affairs.”

CNBC: Why Trump wants Greenland — and what makes it so important for national security.

New York Times: “Even with those outward displays of European-American unity, underlying everything is Mr. Trump’s sudden return to a more imperialist era. Europeans who consider the American intervention in Venezuela a violation of international law see a U.S. president newly empowered and enthralled by military action, which he compared to watching a television show.”

“He comes across as a largely unpredictable force capable of causing enormous disruption — in NATO, in Ukraine, in Iran, in Gaza — as his eye swings from one imagined prize to another.”

Axios: Trump’s Greenland threats put transatlantic alliance on death watch.