The Vineyard and the World

Danish troops land in Greenland. The US president will not rule out the use of force.

Among the latest threats, geopolitics comes down to a simple question: It’s about who gets what and who is strong enough to take it.

The Bible has a story about this. King Ahab wants Naboth’s vineyard to be a beautiful garden next to his palace. Naboth replies no, as it is his inheritance, protected by law and tradition, and not something that the king can take away. Ahab sulks. Queen Jezebel used her power to fabricate a false accusation and kill Naboth. Vineyards are taken. Only then does the prophet Elijah appear. Not to undo what happened, but to evoke it. What you have taken away will not remain hidden, and no compensation will remain.

This pattern can still be seen today. When people mistake restraint for weakness and value influence, trust comes first. The post-World War II order did not end ambition, but continued to suppress habits that made disaster less likely. Without such practices, international life becomes a series of deprivations, each justified after its occurrence.

The US is backing away from that command. Although it had flaws, it helped prevent large-scale wars and made trade and security predictable. The current focus is on short-term profits. Promises of safety seem temporary and trust fades. Each country acts alone, producing more weapons and leaving room for error. Power is more important than consensus or cooperation.

The previous order called for restraint. Although it was a small thing, it helped prevent disasters. When it is replaced by open competition, the risks increase.

We see this change in the recent crisis between the United States and Europe. The American president once again attempted to place Greenland under American control, threatening trade penalties to European governments that did not comply.

When NATO members confirmed that Greenland was Danish territory and refused to make concessions, Washington threatened to impose tariffs on eight European countries. Leaders in London, Paris, Stockholm and other cities called the move coercive and warned it could spark a trade war and weaken alliances.

From Copenhagen to Brussels, governments across Europe are deciding how to counter the threat of U.S. tariffs, using both diplomacy and increased collective self-defense. Europe is starting to come together. Countries that often disagree are now speaking with one voice. Greenland is not a bargaining chip, and the alliance is more than a deal, even between governments that rarely agree. Under pressure, Europe is learning to unite and say no.

In the United States, this episode marks another shift. Foreign policy is now focused on putting on a show for people at home. The real problem is not Greenland. The goal is to demonstrate superiority, make deals, and treat the world like a stage. Policies made for applause forget how alliances are built and how quickly they fall apart when treated as arbitrary.

What happens next is more than just a headline. That’s the real test. Europe cannot hide behind cautious diplomatic language. It must be said that current American actions give Russia and China more room, weaken Ukraine and Taiwan, and show the world that power answers only to itself. Silence is not attention. That’s permission.

Even if the news is full of distractions, Americans need to understand that the world is in crisis and immigration is the problem. Scandal is also important. But nothing is more important than the collapse of the order that has kept major wars away for 80 years. The mass chasing of distractions only helps those who want chaos.

The Bible offers both warning and hope. Naboth’s Vineyard warns that those in power always call theft “necessary.” Elijah makes an even more difficult promise. The truth comes even after the deed is done, and it still matters who pays attention.

As the saying goes, history may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Centuries ago, Pericles, whom Thucydides called “the first citizen of Athens,” spoke to a people under pressure. His funeral oration promised no consolation. It was about responsibility. Athens was strong, he said, not because it closed itself, but because it remained open.

“If we look at our military policy, we differ from our adversaries in some ways. We open our cities to the world, and we never exclude foreigners from learning or observing by alien acts. But sometimes the enemy’s eyes benefit from our freedom. We trust more in the native spirit of our people than in our institutions and policies. Our constitution does not imitate the laws of our neighbors. We are more an example to others than imitators ourselves.”

Ordering does not last through habit. They persist because people decide over and over again not to erase fragile things. It’s not just about power. It’s not just about trading. But through a more difficult effort of self-control, courage, and memory.

notes and reading

• The story of Naboth’s vineyard appears in 1 Kings 21. The episode centers around King Ahab’s desire for Naboth’s land, Queen Jezebel’s manipulation of the legal process, Naboth’s execution, and the prophet Elijah’s conflict with the kingship. This story is a classic Biblical account of power disguising theft as necessity.

• Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian WarBook II, esp. Pericles’ funeral oration (431 BC). The quoted passage comes from Pericles’ description of Athens as an open city that relied on a civic spirit presented as a moral and political ideal rather than rigid institutions.

• “America vs. the World—Robert Kagan, atlantic ocean (March 2026). President Trump wants to return to the 19th century international order. He will lose America’s prosperity and the security of the entire world. Mr. Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a leading voice on American foreign policy. atlantic ocean And beyond that.

• “Defeating Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy” (Brookings Institution, December 2025): A comprehensive collection of insights from a variety of Brookings scholars. The paper analyzes the regime’s transition away from “great power competition” as a rhetorical framework for a more transactional “Donroe Doctrine,” a blend of active hemispheric dominance and selective global restraint.

• “Trump’s New and Old World Order” (Council on Foreign Relations, January 2026). The administration’s efforts to restore a pre-World War I style international order. It is characterized by a more restrained global ambition and an emphasis on domestic security and regional hegemony.

• “Trump 2.0 enters 2026 in earnest” — Leslie Binjamuri (Chicago Council on Global Affairs, January 2026): Binjamli examines the administration’s withdrawal from various international institutions and reorientation of trade agreements as a tool of national security, and provides a data-driven look at how these moves have affected global stability.

time to be stupid

When ideas hunt whales

Approximately 2+2=5