This analysis examines the global consequences of a hypothetical U.S. seizure of Greenland, focusing on how such an act would reshape strategic calculations in Russia and China. Building on recent warnings from the International CrisisGroup and Chatham House, the text argues that Greenland is not merely a territorial dispute but a stress test for the post-1945 international order. If Washington were to override Danish sovereignty, it would normalize coercive “gunboat diplomacy,” weaken NATO’s normative foundations, and hand Moscow and Beijing a powerful geopolitical narrative: that rules apply only until great powers decide otherwise. The analysis shows how Russia would exploit the precedent to justify future coercion in its neighborhood, while China would leverage it to undermine U.S. credibility globally and deepen divisions within Europe. Ultimately, the Greenland scenario reveals how alliances can fracture not through external attack, but through internal contradiction—turning deterrence into vulnerability and legality into a bargaining chip.

Bibliography

ChathamHouse. 2026. U.S. Intentions Towards Greenland Threaten NATO’s Future: European Countries Are Not Helpless. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. January.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/us-intentions-towards-greenland-threaten-natos-future-european-countries-are-not-helpless

InternationalCrisis Group. 2026. From Venezuela to Greenland? Trump’s Gunboat Diplomacy. Brussels.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/venezuela/venezuela-greenland-trumps-gunboat-diplomacy

Messmer, Marion. 2026. “U.S. Intentions Towards Greenland Threaten NATO’s Future.” Chatham House Expert Comment. London.
https://www.chathamhouse.org

United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 1949. The North Atlantic Treaty. Washington, DC.

In this episode, we examine how recent U.S. actions in Venezuela may reshape the global context in which peace talks over Ukraine are taking place. Moving beyond headlines and geography, the analysis explains how precedent, power, and narrative influence diplomacy. We explore why Ukraine faces a strategic dilemma, how Russia can exploit perceived double standards, and how the normalization of force by great powers complicates negotiations. The episode argues that even distant conflicts can alter the logic of peace, not by changing borders, but by changing the rules under which power is exercised.

Bibliography

Kramer, Andrew E. “Ukrainians Welcome a U.S. Victory in Venezuela, and Lament a Double Standard.” New York Times, January 4, 2026.

Méheut, Constant. “How Russia and Ukraine Are Fighting to Shape Trump’s View of the War.” New York Times, December 30, 2025.

Monroe, James. Seventh Annual Message to Congress. December 2, 1823. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Nehamas, Nicholas, Edward Wong, and Tyler Pager. “Russia Asks United States to Stop Pursuit of Fleeing Oil Tanker.” New York Times, January 1, 2026.

Nierenberg, Amelia. “Denmark Tells Trump to ‘Stop the Threats’ About Greenland.” New York Times, January 5, 2026.

Sanger, David E. “The Donroe Doctrine.” New York Times, The Morning,January 2026.

United States. National Security Council. National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington, D.C., November 2025.

This episode explains the Monroe Doctrine, a foundational principle of U.S. foreign policy first declared in 1823, and traces how its meaning has changed over time. It shows how a doctrine originally designed to prevent European intervention in the Americas gradually evolved into a tool used to justify U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Using recent events and contemporary political discourse as context, the text helps students understand the historical origins, transformations, and current debates surrounding the Monroe Doctrine,emphasizing the difference between its original defensive purpose and its modern reinterpretations.

Bibliography

Monroe, James. Seventh Annual Message to Congress (Monroe Doctrine). December 2, 1823. U.S. National Archives.

Sanger, David E. “The Donroe Doctrine.” The New York Times, The Morning newsletter, January 2026.

Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle: Latin America, the United States, and the World. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Gilderhus, Mark T. The Second Century: U.S.–Latin American Relations since 1889. Scholarly Resources, 2000.

Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. Metropolitan Books, 2006.

Brands, H. W. What America Owes the World: The Struggle for the Soul of Foreign Policy.Cambridge University Press, 1998.

U.S. National Security Council. National Security Strategy of the United States.Washington, D.C., November 2025.

2025 did not bring resolution, but suspension. In this year-end reflection, The Axis looks back at a world where wars stalled instead of ending, power circulated without legitimacy, and peace became a matter of language rather thanguarantees. From Ukraine and Gaza to Europe’s uneasy rearmament and America’s growing unpredictability, the episode traces a deeper pattern beneath the headlines: a global order that did not collapse, but quietly lost its center. Rather than offering closure or predictions, it asks what it means to think andact in a world where nothing is automatic anymore — and why the struggle overnarrative has become one of the last decisive battlegrounds of politics.

Thisepisode explores a central paradox of 2026: global instability is accelerating just as Donald Trump’s political power appears to be weakening. Using Francis Fukuyama’s argument that Trump has already reached “peak power,” we examine howdomestic resistance, electoral headwinds, and institutional pushback are eroding his ability to govern—even as his policies continue to fuel conflict at home and abroad.

Drawing on recent analyses from the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House, and the European Council on Foreign Relations, the episode asks whether a weakened U.S.president can survive mounting domestic and international crises—and what this means for allies, especially Europe and Ukraine, in a world no longer anchored by reliable American leadership

This episode unpacks the seismic shift in U.S. foreign policy revealed in Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy. It explains how “America First” reshapes alliances, unsettles Europe, reassures autocrats, and risks weakening the foundations ofU.S. global power.

Bibliography

– National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2025). The White House.

– Emily Harding, “The National Security Strategy: The Good, the Not So Great, and the Alarm Bells,” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 5December 2025. CSIS+1

– Laurel Rapp, “Trump’s new national security strategy: Cut deals, hammer Europe, and tread gently around autocrats,” Chatham House, 9 December 2025. chathamhouse.org+1

– Carl Bildt, “Reading Trump’s National Security Strategy: Europe through a distorted lens,” European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), 9 December 2025. EuropeanCouncil on Foreign Relations+1

–Christopher Caldwell, “Trump Is Not Attacking Europe. He’s Attacking Something Else,” The New York Times, 11 December 2025 (referenced via social share). Mastodonhosted on mastodon.social

– “Danish Intelligence Report Raises Concerns About U.S.,” reported in The New York Times, summarized viaPolitical Wire, 11 December 2025. Political Wire

This week’s analysis looks at the future of Europe and Russia in a moment that feels similar to the film Casablanca. While Russia shows military strength and active sabotage in Europe, it also faces deep long-term weaknesses. At the same time, the United States is divided: part of America continues to defend Europe,while the MAGA movement prefers nationalist politics and even supports far-right groups inside the EU.

Europe is now deciding whether it should keep depending on the United States or become a real strategic power of its own. Using recent investigations, expert opinions, and international news, the lesson explains how today’s choices will shape thebalance between democracy, security, and authoritarian influence in the years ahead.

Thisanalysis explores the unfolding Ukraine peace negotiations through the lens of Archilochus’s metaphor of the fox and the hedgehog. The U.S.–Russia 28-point proposal, pushed by Donald Trump, is dissected as a tactical, transactional“fox” document—rich in clauses, deals, and improvisations—while Vladimir Putin’s approach is interpreted as the relentless, single-minded logic of the “hedgehog,” focused on Ukrainian subordination and territorial control. The text explains the differences between the U.S. plan and Europeancounter-proposals, identifies the clauses that jeopardize Ukrainian security, and examines how European leaders now face a decisive moment: whether to passively accept a flawed settlement or actively reshape the geopolitical termsof peace. The piece concludes with a forecast of the likely outcomes over the coming year, stressing the dangers of a bad peace and the strategic importance of European agency.