President Donald Trump’s global strategy is producing global tensions, acceleration of some significant events and even prudential examinations of state, private and public actors in general.
Donald Trump raises the indispensability of Greenland becoming part of the United States for a new dynamic of US geopower.
This geopolitical purpose receives, throughout the world, apart from adhesions, numerous criticisms and incessant analyses for all tastes and positions.
Because of the current global interest and its potential impact on the future of the world, our experts, in this analytical piece, share their respective opinions on the implications of “Trump’s strategy in Greenland”.
Leonardo Russo:
I think NATO is just an umbrella for Washington. The Europeans will be sad, but like obedient dogs: they will do nothing against the United States.
Europe, today, is almost a colony of Washington.
Jesús Alberto Erazo Castro:
The Monroe Doctrine is no longer limited to Latin America: it now bites Europe, cannibalizing its own allies. Greenland will be American only by force: 85% of Greenlanders reject any annexation, and Denmark is a NATO ally. But that doesn’t matter anymore.
It is the inter-imperialism of a power in decline: Trump recycles the Venezuelan modus operandi, using strategic resources as an alibi to crush sovereignties. Fierce precedent: if they can do it with Denmark, who is safe?
Alexander Markovics:
The United States want to take Greenland – if necessary, by force. There’s no „rule-based order“ in the West, only “lex fortissimum” exists. As the US-empire is in decline, the United States assert their dominant position inside the Western alliance and demand obedience by Europe.
A conflict inside NATO is unlikely, since the US are by far it’s strongest member. However, Trump’s newest threats could lead to a rethinking of Transatlanticism in Europe. The more he threatens Denmark, France and Germany, the more attractive the idea of multipolarity will become. In the face of annihilation in a two-front conflict – against the US in the West and Russia in Ukraine – Europeans should rethink their Russophobia and start talks with Moscow over a new security architecture for the whole of Eurasia. European hypermoral and double standards in geopolitics can’t stop the United States.
One thing is sure: Greenland can’t be claimed by the EU in the long run, since it’s strategically and militarily to weak to do that.
Carlos Mamani:
After the Trump–Putin meeting in Alaska, a rapid series of events has taken place, such as the publication of the new U.S. National Security Strategy and, shortly thereafter, the military intervention in Venezuela.
These events point in a single direction: that the return of empires in the multipolar world of the 21st century is not just a theory, but a reality. From this perspective, the annexation of Greenland constitutes a key geostrategic component for the construction of a large U.S. continental space in the Americas.
If these imperial ambitions were to be realized, the transatlantic system (NATO/European Union) would no longer have a reason to exist, since the U.S. would be a large self-centered space in the Americas, exercising hegemony at a continental scale but no longer at a global one.
Raphael Machado:
We do not know how far Trump is going to conquer Greenland, but it is true that Greenland is a strategic interest for the United States and its annexation belongs to the logic of the Monroe Doctrine. Then some kind of “takeover” will occur, either by payment, by military occupation or, for example, in the “best” of the hypotheses, the concession of military bases in the area and the granting of authorization to exploit local resources.
In fact, of course, any outcome will generate tensions and risks of rupture with Europe.
Patricio Santos:
What at first seemed like one more of President Trump’s irreverent statements at the time, in recent days, after the assault on Caracas and the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro, Trump feels emboldened and has redirected his artillery again, this time with respect to his aspirations on the Danish island of Greenland.
Washington’s threats seem to be very serious, and the threat to take the island militarily, as it is not completely ruled out, Washington will try to avoid the military option, and in the first instance it would exhaust diplomatic and political channels, insist on the insistent purchase and at the same time it will begin to influence, finance Greenlandic sectors and political parties to achieve secession in a Referendum. all this while seeking to increase its military presence on the island.
If the unthinkable happens and Washington opts for the military route to take control and conquest of the island, this, without a doubt, would be the final blow for NATO, since the bloc without the United States would substantially lose more than half of its military, logistical and of course budgetary capabilities. in addition to the fact that the European powers would hardly choose to go to a direct war against the United States over Greenland.
The impact that this could have on the rest of the American continent, well, I consider that the role of Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean would be to be spectators, to see that chaos from afar, Canada would be much more exposed.
Most likely, the US will not opt for the military route, but will apply and execute other options such as those already mentioned.
Alejandro Valenzuela:
Donald Trump and the industrialist and real estate elites that support him are determined to turn Greenland into a U.S. territory, while attempting to continue the reconfiguration of the U.S. and other areas of the world that are necessary for the interests of the Trump project.
Therefore, barring force majeure factors that hinder him, Trump has a high probability of ending up annexing Greenland.
This will have negative repercussions among the Anglo-European allies of the United States, who, at first, will try to put up all the necessary obstacles to prevent the achievement of Trump’s objective, deepening the division among the Western elites.
And if, in the end, Trump annexes Greenland, much of the Americas will feel significant concern because it will get the message: The strength of the Trump project’s hegemony in the Americas.
For this reason, some governments opposed to Trump will take additional measures.
Lucas Leiroz:
It’s possible, but not guaranteed. The possibility stems from Trump’s clear intention to establish an American sphere of influence in the multipolar world.
Trump doesn’t seem to care much about NATO and is also interested in challenging the Europeans.
Gonzalo Collado:
There is a real possibility that the United States will take over Greenland. This territory has been in the Americans’ sights since the 19th century, following the purchase of Alaska, and regained relevance in 1946 with an attempt to purchase it by Harry Truman. Although he did not succeed, the United States managed to secure a defence agreement that today translates into an American base. This is important to mention, given that what we are seeing in the current government is not simply a whim of Donald Trump, as is sometimes repeated, but rather the reactivation of existing desires for the strategic plans of the American country.
Now, how will its NATO allies react? The clash of interests will certainly be noticeable in the discourse, but the question is: how far is Europe willing to go to confront the desires of its master? Of course, despite the rhetoric, independence and sovereignty are conspicuous by their absence on the European continent. In Europe, the worldview of cultural uprooting is also reflected in a lack of awareness of defence. And by defence, I do not mean one linked to foreign interests, as is currently the case, but a defence related to a territory, its culture and identity, as is the case today with Greenland, a territory of natural European expansion since the Vikings.
If this annexation were to take place, it would also set important precedents for the rest of the American continent, where the current American administration boasts of it being “their region”. This should certainly teach us a clear lesson that there is no rules-based international order and that the powerful can do as they please with the weaker nations.
