លោក Trump មានភាពម៉ឺងម៉ាត់ចំពោះកោះ Greenland
The US is attempting to create a US-led, resource-driven new world order based on energy dominance, territorial leverage, and Europe’s strategic impotence.
The US is attempting to create a US-led, resource-driven new world order based on energy dominance, territorial leverage, and Europe’s strategic impotence.
When US President Donald Trump returned this week to his obsession of acquiring Greenland—one that seemed largely forgotten only a month ago—the idea was not greeted as mere “histrionics,” particularly in Europe. And it’s not just about the “Maduro effect.” Beneath Trump’s provocative statements, a geopolitical strategy seems to be emerging, one that can be termed a “new globalism.”
Trump’s “globalism” consists of three logically integrated elements: reinterpreting the Monroe Doctrine—some now refer to it as the “Donroe Doctrine”; transforming the US into an energy superpower that monopolizes the hydrocarbon market, particularly in regional trade; and enhancing America’s status as an Arctic superpower—a position the US currently holds only nominally.
There is a certain logic to the president’s actions: removing Nicolás Maduro is crucial for turning Venezuela’s hydrocarbon resources into a source of further economic stability for the US. This is Trump’s initial volley into the world of the “new globalism.” To become an energy superpower, the US must control Venezuela’s (and potentially Iran’s) hydrocarbon resources while eliminating “shadow fleets” as soon as possible. In a similar vein, achieving full legal control over Greenland is essential for establishing the US as an Arctic power. Otherwise, it would be cumbersome for the US to maintain competitiveness as an energy superpower after 2030.
Certainly, an alternative approach could involve investing in a costly and prolonged development program to revive Alaska. However, that would take years, if not decades. Greenland, on the other hand, presents an opportunity to quickly solidify a new political and geographical status.
Trump acts opportunistically but nonetheless systematically, choosing succeeding steps based on perceived weaknesses in his geopolitical rivals. Consequently, he believes Europe is sufficiently weakened to pursue discussions about various initiatives concerning Greenland’s status at a completely different level than in the spring of 2025, when geopolitical affairs augured against it. Trump referred disparagingly to Greenland recently in a conversation with reporters. “Do you know what their defense is? Two dog sleds,” he said, responding to a question about whether the US had made a political proposal to Greenland or Denmark. He added that, meanwhile, in relation to Greenland, Russian and Chinese destroyers and submarines are “all over the place.”
We should also note that when discussing Greenland, Trump directly highlighted NATO’s inability to protect the island from external threats, even unsubstantiated ones (like the prospect of Russia and China seizing the territory).
Trump’s message is clear: he intends to claim or reclaim any poorly defended “assets.”
Trump’s obsession with the idea of acquiring Greenland may also stem from the failure of European leaders to form even a modestly sized “coalition of the willing,” despite the rhetoric of being ready (in lieu of US participation) to take full responsibility for Europe’s security. A proposed hypothetical force of 200,000 troops has now dwindled to just 40,000 in six months—and it is unlikely the Europeans would be able to muster even that diminished number. Consequently, any joint initiatives by the UK, Germany, and France are unlikely to impress Trump.
The realization of their own military impotence has deeply unsettled Europeans. Although no one is saying it outright, there are countries in Europe willing to sacrifice Greenland in order to not trigger Article 5 of NATO in the face of Trump’s intransigence. And if Trump succeeds, these nations would essentially become part of his “retinue,” losing their political voice even within NATO, once regarded as a union of equal democracies. Furthermore, should Trump be successful with Greenland, who would be next in the “Donroe Doctrine”—the Province of Alberta, Canada—Canada itself?
How can Europe counter America’s “new globalism”? It seems evident that serious military options for Europe exist only in the bluster and rhetoric of European politicians, aimed at shaping (meaning subduing) domestic public unrest. But if one considers public criticism by the British media of UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, this strategy may be faltering. Political maneuvering remains Europe’s only recourse.
High hopes were pinned on Euro-Atlantic solidarity and the ability to “outnumber” Trump, for example, by using NATO’s consultation mechanisms. But Trump has made it clear that he will make decisions unilaterally, outside any legal frameworks. This puts European leaders in the position of having only one recourse if Trump annexes or invades Greenland, a territorial possession of a NATO member, Denmark—invoke NATO’s Article Five.
If they take such a step, it could signal the beginning of the end for the Atlantic alliance. The discussion around Greenland—essentially about the territorial integrity of Denmark (a NATO member state)—would fundamentally undermine the core principle of NATO: maintaining the internal geopolitical integrity of the bloc while addressing external threats and removing all internal risks.
A more productive approach might involve pressuring Trump toward a sort of “middle ground” when it comes to Greenland’s status, such as establishing, as the US has done before, an American military and economic protectorate over the island. Despite Trump’s statements that he is only interested in outright annexation, this alternative might be feasible under certain conditions. Consider how Trump handled the situation with Venezuela: after expressing readiness for a second phase of conflict, Trump quickly backtracked and began negotiations with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez once he realized that US economic interests could be maintained and the regime would align itself with pro-American and anti-Chinese policies. A similar scenario could unfold with Greenland.
This writer, in fact, in articles for the American Spectator just this week and The Hill last February, argued for a 100-year lease with Greenland, along with US financial and political support for its independence from Denmark.
One should underestimate neither the US president’s ability to step back temporarily, only to revisit the issue when circumstances are more favorable, nor his resolve in establishing the US’s “new globalism” world order with America at its forefront. Greenland is a centerpiece of that ensemble.
No comments