Fissures in the Fold: Trump’s Greenland Gambit and Cracks in the Global Order

Trump’s Greenland remarks have rippled through international halls of power, unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Germany’s Chancellor and France’s minister of foreign affairs both expressed their discontent with Trump’s stance, in particular his refusal to rule out the use of force in taking Greenland. Denmark has made it clear that it opposes the notion of American control of the territory, while Greenland’s Prime Minister emphasized that while open to cooperation, the territory is not for sale. China and Russia have their own concerns about control of the Arctic, with Russia seeking to control the growing strategic navigation lanes that are arising as a result of Arctic melt.

Trump’s position on Greenland is not new. During his first term, he flouted the idea of buying the territory, a proposition that was met with significant resistance and fizzled out. He is not the first American president to seek control of the territory; efforts have been made by previous administrations to do so, most recently in 1946 coinciding with the onset of the Cold War and the burgeoning U.S. – Soviet rivalry. Greenland has long been a strategic focal point for the U.S., valued for its geostrategic positioning, economic potential, and growing importance in Arctic security amid natural resource discoveries and competition for control of trade routes born out of the melting Arctic ice.

Since the founding of NATO in 1949 however, with Denmark (which includes Greenland) as a founding member, the issue seems to have faded to the backburner. The framework of defense collaboration offered by the Alliance addressed some U.S. concerns, particularly with the construction of the U.S. military base on the territory in 1951.

The resurgence of the idea during Trump’s first term, and then again as he prepares to take office for the second time however mark an important development in American political psyche as we begin the second quarter of the 21^st century. Rather than a one-off idea by Trump, it appears to be an increasingly urgent U.S. strategic objective within some political circles in Washington.

Adding weight to the notion that it is not an idea that Trump simply came up with on a whim simply to secure his legacy is the fact that during his repeated statements on Greenland he states that “he has been told” for a long time that it’s important for national security.

As Trump gears up to take office, his political allies are reinforcing his position on the issue, with Congressman Andy Ogles (Republican, Tennessee) introducing the Make Greenland Great Again Act to congress, paving the way for Trump to implement this goal, or at the very least expressing support for the notion within congress and normalizing its consideration over the course of Trump’s term for future implementation.

Further strengthening Trump’s ability is the fact that it is highly unlikely Pete Hegseth -nominee for Secretary of Defense- would oppose Trump’s instructions, and equally unlikely that Marco Rubio – nominee for Secretary of State would present resistance to Trump on his foreign policy dictates. Both nominees are loyal to Trump, and with their appointments would also be politically indebted to him, ensuring their support and execution of his policy directions.

Essentially, what Trump has done through his statements on Greenland is unveil underlying geopolitical directions within the U.S. political ecosystem, that may have arguably been better handled without a spotlight.

Signals Across Borders: How Trump's Greenland Rhetoric Reads Abroad

Domestically within the U.S. the debate on the issue of Greenland is gradually becoming normalized, with discussions on the security considerations, the best approaches and alternatives to addressing the Greenland question being raised. Internationally however, the considerations are starkly different. The concept of an expansionist, quasi-imperialistic U.S. is terrifying not only to potential adversaries, but also to U.S. allies, specifically in Europe.

While domestically, the Trump posture on Greenland -and other locations – is being described as a way to project strength, abroad it is being read as a signal that the U.S. is concerned about increasing vulnerability to rising rival powers, specifically Russia and China, and the rising competition for control of international waterways and transit routes. Rather than strength, this rhetoric reveals a U.S. grappling with its diminishing dominance over global security paradigms.

It also signals a contraction of U.S. interests, aligning with Trump’s "America First" agenda of prioritizing short term tangible goals over long standing traditional alliances. The contracting circle of interest can now be viewed as gradually excluding unconditional support for traditional and long standing allies, withdrawing to be solely focused on the U.S. while considering its allies both expendable and potential targets (as evidenced by the statements on Greenland, Panama, and Canada).

The messaging further indicates that the U.S. is increasingly mistrustful of NATO and its allies within. Denmark is a founding member of NATO, and that, coupled with the U.S. military presence in Greenland, has formed an important cornerstone of security and defense cooperation for decades. The notion that the U.S. should seize full control of Greenland despite the existing alliance and military presence shows waning U.S. trust in its ally and the NATO framework as whole.

The increasingly isolationist approach, the expendability of allies, and the mistrust of existing cooperation and alliance frameworks are all alarming messages as far as Europe is concerned. It is unlikely that they will voice these concerns plainly, but they nevertheless are expected to harbor them.

Even before Trump’s election, European leaders like Emmanuel Macron had hinted at the U.S. viewing Europe as a subordinate partner rather than an equal ally. Macron, in further developing his line of thinking indicated last week that Europe needs to assert its independence and develop its own continental measures to counter the U.S. and China’s growing global influence, signaling the recognition of a growing separation of interests between the continent and its longest standing ally.

Rather than nurture its considerable influence, built over decades of engagement and cooperation, the U.S. political direction now appears to be shifting -under this new administration- toward a considerably more direct and overt control and pressure. Allies would have understood the messaging from the new U.S. administration to indicate that no alliance is sacred to it, and therefore they were on notice to develop strategies to cope with this approach.

Crucially, Trump’ approach -and the growing voices of his supporters in congress- indicates that even the pretense of principles as a guiding force in setting U.S. foreign policy may be fading, and the transactional, adversarial approach will reign supreme with rivals and allies alike. Russia and China will have begun their own reassessments of engagement with the U.S. based on the messaging evident from Trump's approach to U.S. allies.

Beyond the Bluff: Europe Prepares?

Various analyses of Trumps messaging on Greenland – and others- have either dismissed then as grandstanding or as positioning for negotiations in the future for economic terms, or to secure concessions on matters of investment or defense that are important for the U.S.

Others have categorized them as deterrence tactics directed toward rising powers like Russia and China, meant to indicate that the U.S. will not hesitate to wield and deploy its might to secure its global hegemonic position.

Regardless of the varying evaluations of likelihood of the U.S. taking Greenland by force, the fact remains that the President Elect has remarked on the issue more than once, and has not ruled out the use of military force. When the president of the U.S. makes a statement of intent like that, even if the possibility of occurrence were minute, it has to be taken seriously and the strategic ramifications considered.

Across Europe now, without a shadow of a doubt, strategists and advisors are heavily engaged on evaluating the possible scenarios, running simulations, and preparing for the worst case scenario. They are likely considering the processes and ramifications of shifting power dynamics, how to consolidate their security and defense collaboration, and explore avenues of common interests with other global actors to secure the continent. For the first time in decades, Europe is likely grappling with the daunting question of how to credibly deter the U.S. from viewing its territories as expendable or acquirable in an era of redefined alliances.

Even if Trump were to dismiss the issue upon assumption of office, and focus his efforts elsewhere, the support he received from sectors of the U.S. political spectrum has undoubtedly ignited concerns in Europe and beyond about a reimagined U.S. foreign policy direction in the coming years.

What Lies Ahead?

Trump’s Greenland statements have sparked intense study and debate among experts, analysts, journalists, and pundits across the globe. Speculation about Trump’s intentions is widespread, with scenarios ranging from ‘nothing changes—it was all talk’ to the extreme: ‘the U.S. invades Greenland.’

To shed some perspective on how this matter may be considered by other global players, in the next piece on the topic I will explore how strategic actors on the other side of this issue may be tackling the issue. In the upcoming piece, we will explore the European perspective, followed by the Russian, and ending the series with China.

Stay tuned.