Having already written about some things to look for in the New Year, I’d like to take a new approach. Donald Trump’s talk about making Canafda the 51st state, buying Greenland, and repossessing the Panama Canal caused me to think of how leaders who see themselves as bigger than life seem focused on the past rather than charting a future that benefits those they lead.

Our major adversaries, Russia, Iran, and China, are centered on recreating old empires. Turkey may be poised to join this group. Putin in Russia regrets the loss of the Empire, created through centuries of Russian expansion culminating in the vast Soviet Empire, which collapsed under Cold War pressure. Setting up stooges in some adjoining territories and continuing to attack Ukraine, the Russian strongman is expending blood and treasure on a grand scale to reestablish the Empire.

The Histories of Empires from the Persian through the Sasanian, centered in Iran, fuel the Mullahs’ desire to widen their reach across the Middle East. They may, as Shites, even see themselves as rightful ones to bring back the Moslem Empire of the early caliphs.

No nation has a more extended History of Empire than China, going at least back to the Shang Dynasty (221 B.C.). Before the communists, the Ming Dynasty (1368 to 1644) was the last to attempt expansion, sending fleets and armies to gain control of both the land and maritime Silk Roads. However, reversals such as the Tummu crisis caused China to look inward. While Chinese fleets reached the east coast of Africa in the 15th century, they never rounded the Cape of Good Hope. Later in the century, the Portuguese did, and the direction of the history of the world changed. I covered this outcome in my “The 15th Century Came and nothing would ever be the same” post in “The Long Journey to More” series.

Xi Jinping seems intent on succeeding where the Ming Dynasty failed. His Belt & Road Initiative intends to recreate the land and maritime Silk Roads under Chinese control.

Erdogan in Turkey may also dream of past empires. Anatolia-based empires, the Byzantine and then the Ottoman Turks, clashed for centuries with Iranian-based regimes over the control of the Middle East and more.

I’m not making light of the dangers when I say these leaders are trying to recreate past “glory” and conclude they’re so passe. For much of history, the ways to get “More” were to take from someone else or trade for it. The third method, Innovation, moved at a glacial pace. Today, change moves at an ever-faster speed.

Taking it from someone else is proving not only dangerous but also cost-ineffective. What does Russia gain by attacking Ukraine? Whatever the outcome, Russia may never recover from its losses for decades. How does a nation with a declining population replace a half million casualties? Wouldn’t the billions expended be better invested in modernizing the country?

Iran’s adventures to spread its power throughout the Middle East have left it with high inflation and vulnerable to attack by Israel and others. Its primary source of income is oil, which is susceptible to attack after Israel neutralizes its air defenses. Wouldn’t Iran have been better off investing in developing itself? As it is, with about 10 times the population of Israel, it has a lower GDP. No wonder it’s losing.

Is China better off increasing its control over Hong Kong? The city-state served as a capital and trade conduit between China and the rest of the world during China’s era of explosive growth. Now, both Hong Kong and China have lost their mojo. Has China’s increasing aggressiveness helped it or left it more isolated and less able to deal with a rapidly declining population?

The present leaders of these countries look backward and see triumphal arches and “the Great ” attached to historical rulers and picture themselves. In the more modern world, Hitler, with the Third Reich and Mussolini’s new Roman Empire, brought only defeat and destruction to their nations. While Hitler claimed Germany had to have more territory for its citizens to thrive, a smaller post-war Germany now lives much better than pre-war Germans.

While small in territory, the Swiss and Singaporeans have “more” per capita than any of these expansionist nations. If China were to conquer Taiwan, both would be worse off. The same would be true if Russia reclaimed the Baltic States. Iran, with its tentacles throughout the Middle East, has only stagnated.

In today’s world, strength comes from Innovation and trade rather than from expending resources to take from others.

We must view Trump’s statements about Canada, Greenland, and Panama against this background. I see the value in a closer union with Canada. A more uniform system would benefit both, much like the original colonies joining to form the U.S. Our economic integration is already quite extensive.

In the past, I noted that Greenland’s development was a concern for the U.S. Denmark alone can’t defend the island, and NATO hasn’t been a bulwark against Russia. We shouldn’t ignore the potential problem.

Since we built it, the Panama Canal has been a vital strategic area for the U.S. We have every right to be concerned about access to this waterway. Are we in danger of losing transit or being mistreated? I haven’t seen any evidence of problems, but it is always a strategic site for us.

The question is whether Trump’s expansionist expressions arise from legitimate concerns or whether he is seeking self-aggrandizement like the leaders cited above. For instance, does he see himself applauded for gaining Canada when we failed twice? (During the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812)

The bullying nature towards friendly nations, such as Canada, Denmark, and Panama, is either a brutal bargaining tactic or a demand for vassalage. Nobody likes a bully, and demeaning others can come back and bite you. Trump should remember John McCain’s taking his revenge by sinking the Obamacare repeal. I can still see him turning his thumbs down. Even if his concerns are legitimate, Trump might consider a friendlier approach before going full intimidator. People have long memories.

It comes down to whether Trump is all bluster or seeks to have “the Great” added to his name.