President Trump’s rhetoric about Canada as “the 51st state” is treated by many as political theater — a ploy by the president to destabilize the opposition, perhaps. But his remarks allude to something much less innocuous and more unsettling.  By now, all of us have heard the rather bois terous rhetoric of America's new president. Headlines from Fox News say, “Trump suggests Canada become 51st state after Trudeau said tariff would kill economy.” Politico reports that “Trump threatens to retake Panama Canal.” And the Associated Press says “Trump again calls to buy Greenland after eyeing Canada and the Panama Canal.”  Admittedly, audacious remarks from Trump are neither new nor are they taken too seriously in most quarters — just more political messaging by an incoming president with much to live up to. Yet Trump's bold talk about these states does mine something much deeper than mere rhetoric. And while his admonitions may not eventuate, that is beside the point.  President Trump is stirring the cauldron of world politics. Comments about tariffs as well as annexing, buying and reclaiming sovereign territories have elicited a caustic response as well as their own share of media humor. Beyond its entertainment value, Trump’s provocations (even if he is not aware of it), do point to a subtle and potentially more dangerous issue: Could nation-state sovereignty no longer be the inviolable precept we have believed in since the 17th century?   Although the concept of the sovereign nation-state has its origin in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia and the end of the Thirty Years’ War of Religion, the “inviolability of borders” is a relatively recent phenomenon.  The idea of a “right to statehood” emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, embraced by two counterposing entities: the Bolsheviks of Russia and the liberal U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Both sought to dismantle empires — Russia’s for ideological reasons and the U.S. to expand its own influence.   The result was a proliferation of relatively weak, dependent states that (for all practical purposes) became tools of Moscow and Washington's foreign policy.  The sovereignty of these “neo-states” — essentially reliant on foreign support (militarily, economically and politically) for their existence — was little more than a bargaining chip.  This dynamic has persisted beyond World War II into the neoliberal era of today. In fact, nearly every conflict until the mid-20th century ended with redrawn borders.  So, here's the question: Are we not doing the same thing today in Ukraine?  Certainly, there have been previous examples of sovereignty being sacrificed for peace: the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in 1938, Serbia/Kosovo in 1999 and others.  In a world where power increasingly relies on military might, sovereignty has shifted from a precept of international law to an issue of practical control. And the control comes from beyond the borders of the alleged sovereign state — often for the benefit of foreign power agendas.  Ukraine's sovereignty is contested for reasons that have little to do with the country itself.  Consider the turn of events in Ukraine. Since Moscow’s 2022 “special military operation,” (i.e. invasion) that country has been unable to maintain control over about one-fifth (20 percent) of its sovereign territory. Moreover, its prospects for regaining it are diminishing daily. After Tuesday’s phone call between Trump and Putin, the process towards a ceasefire and redrawing Ukraine’s borders has begun.  At the same time, except for the U.S. and a few East European countries like Hungary and Slovakia, Britain and the European Union — in response to Trump's peace initiative — continue to support Ukraine militarily and financially with billions of dollars. And while the response from the United Kingdom and EU appear to support Ukraine’s fight against Moscow, these countries have ulterior motives.   Britain has historically viewed Moscow through a “Russophobic lens,” believing it to be a threat to its interests — especially its crown jewel — India. Today, Britain is a “middle power,” and it is not adjusting well to the loss of empire status.  The Europeans actually need Russia as a perceived adversary for two reasons: First, Europe needs an “enemy” in order to justify spending $840 billion on security out of fear of Trump abandoning them. Second, Russia is needed as a perceived threat in order to hold together Europe’s “Balkanizing” Union.  With Trump making deals for energy, natural resources and reintegration of Russia back into the G-7 — who exactly are Britain and the EU rearming to fight?  Ukraine is being used in a proxy war for reasons that have nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the country. And the borders of Ukraine are being redrawn and its sovereign territory is being redefined by powers external to the country.   In this shifting global landscape, it seems that territory and external control are once again becoming central to international politics. Given this reality, the idea of sovereignty — and the U.S.-led rules-based order that preserves it — must not become a casualty of flawed political initiatives.   Trump’s comments about annexing Canada, taking back Panama and buying Greenland (from a country that doesn't have the legal right to sell it) highlight the subtle hypocrisy in the international community. Sovereignty, once treated as sacrosanct, increasingly seems to be giving ground to political agendas of assorted foreign policies East and West.  Westphalian nation-state sovereignty, the notion of “sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories” is built on a key premise: The principle of non-interference asserts that no state should interfere in the internal affairs of another state. It upholds the idea that each state has the right to govern itself without external intervention.   The entire Ukraine debacle is antithetical to this principle. The 2014 coup to remove President Viktor Yanukovych, which some argue was Western-influenced, the Russian invasion, the sabotage of the 2022 peace talks and the hundreds of thousands killed, speak to the critical lack of regard for the concept of sovereignty within the international community.  Could globalism and a troubled EU be symptoms of an underlying malady — an assault on sovereignty? Today, Ukraine is sovereign in name only, with the U.K., U.S., EU and Russia ultimately deciding through territorial concessions and political control what its sovereignty will look like.   In the 21st century, the people of Eastern Europe must never take their sovereignty — and the freedom it secures — for granted. Just ask the people of Ukraine today and those of yesterday's Sudetenland.   F. Andrew Wolf Jr. is the director of The Fulcrum Institute, an organization of current and former scholars in the humanities, arts and sciences.  ...read more read less