Subject: Re: war with Denmark or Panama??
Either national security is a thing or it is not a thing.
Either the new Axis of China/Russia/+some failed states is a global security concern or it is not.

No one disputes that national security is a thing. Nor that the new Axis of China/Russia and a few failed states is a global security concern.

If the answer to either of the above is "yes, it's a thing" or "yes, the new Axis powers are a threat" then certain actions must be taken.

Sure - but the question is what "certain actions" are the smart choices to take in response to the threat, and which ones aren't.

Antagonizing European allies in order to try to get them to sell you Greenland, along with refusing to rule out the use of force against a NATO member, is probably not a beneficial tactic. It will have negative effects on your ability to respond to thwart the China/Russia Axis. For the obvious reason that global security concerns usually need to be addressed globally, with cooperation of lots of countries.

You have speculated that Trump is antagonizing our European allies for some other, unstated goal. You've mentioned the unrelated issue of European nations' defense spending, for example. Maybe Trump thinks that by acting erratically in this way, the other members of NATO might (perhaps) decide that the U.S. is not necessarily a reliable partner, and therefore feel less secure under the NATO umbrella, and therefore increase their defense spending. But that would still be a dumb choice of "certain actions" to take - because undermining the reliability of the U.S. amongst our allies probably causes more damage than their increased defensive expenditures benefits our global security, relative to other options to get them to increase their defense spending.

You might not want to invoke Kissinger here, BTW. He might have been more of a practitioner of realpolitik than Obama, but he wouldn't do something as dumb as publicly refuse to disclaim the use of force against a NATO member.