By Dmitry Evstafiev, Professor at the Institute of Media, HSE University, PhD in Political Science

When US President Donald Trump returned to the topic of acquiring Greenland – one that seemed largely forgotten just a month ago – the idea wasn’t considered mere ‘theatrics’, particularly in Europe. And it’s not just about the ‘Maduro effect’. Beneath Trump’s provocative statements, a clear geopolitical strategy is emerging, one that can be termed ‘new globalism’. This approach is far more economically grounded than the concept of globalization, even US-centric globalization.  

Trump’s ‘new globalism’ consists of three logically interconnected components:

• Reinterpreting the Monroe Doctrine (One may wonder if Trump considers the Philippines part of this ‘Greater America’ as well...)

• Transforming the US into an energy superpower that monopolizes the rules of the game in the hydrocarbon market, particularly in regional trade

• Enhancing America’s status as an Arctic superpower – a position that the US currently holds only nominally 

Trump’s actions are quite logical: dismantling Nicolas Maduro’s regime is crucial for turning Latin America’s resources into a source of short-term economic stability for the US. This is Trump’s ‘entrance ticket’ into the world of ‘new globalism’. America cannot become an energy superpower unless it has control over Venezuela’s (and eventually Brazil’s and Iran’s) oil resources and eliminates ‘shadow fleets’ as soon as possible. Similarly, achieving full legal control over Greenland is essential for establishing the US as an Arctic power. Otherwise, it would be difficult for the US to maintain competitiveness as an energy superpower after 2030. 

Certainly, an evolutionary path could involve investing in a costly and prolonged program to revive Alaska. However, that would take years, if not decades. Instead, Greenland presents an opportunity to quickly solidify a new political and geographical status.

Trump acts systematically, choosing his next steps based on the perceived weaknesses of his geopolitical competitors. Apparently, he believes that Europe is sufficiently weakened to engage in discussions about Greenland’s status at a completely different level than in the spring of 2025, when he had to back down. Trump talked about this in a recent 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, 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 fabricated ones (like the prospect of Russia and China seizing the territory). Trump’s message is clear: he intends to 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 an even modestly sized ‘coalition of the willing’, despite their claims of being ready to take full responsibility for Europe’s security. A proposed force of 200,000 troops dwindled to just 40,000 in six months – and it is unlikely that the Europeans would be able to gather even such a military force. Consequently, any joint initiatives by the UK, Germany, and France are unlikely to impress Trump.

The realization of their own military weakness deeply unsettles Europeans. Major countries in Europe might be willing to sacrifice Greenland. However, if Trump succeeds, these nations would essentially become his ‘resource’, losing their political voice even within NATO, which was once regarded as a ‘union of equal democracies’. Furthermore, should the operation regarding Greenland go through, nothing would stand between Trump and Canada.

How can Europe counter America’s ‘new globalism’? As we’ve mentioned above, military options exist only in the rhetoric of European politicians, which is aimed at shaping domestic public opinion. However, the criticism of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in British media indicates that this strategy is faltering. Political methods remain Europe’s only recourse. But here too, the options are limited.

High hopes were pinned on Euro-Atlantic solidarity and the ability to ‘outnumber’ Trump (as we’ve seen in the situation with Ukraine), for example by using NATO’s consultation mechanisms. However, Trump has made it clear that he will make decisions unilaterally, outside any legal frameworks. Still, European leaders might invoke NATO’s Article Five. If they take such a step, it could signal the beginning of the end for the bloc. The discussion around Greenland – essentially about the territorial integrity of one of NATO’s member states, particularly one of its founding nations – 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 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 could happen if European leaders find influential allies within the US and the resources of the US administration are diverted to other crises. One should not underestimate Trump’s ability to step back temporarily, only to revisit the issue when circumstances are more favorable.

You can share this story on social media: