Trump’s dangerous game

It is no exaggeration to say that anyone with even a passing interest in politics now opens the news with a sense of dread. The events unfolding at Davos alone are enough to send the mind into overdrive. January, usually the slowest month of the year, has instead accelerated at breakneck speed. In just three weeks, the familiar rhythm of global politics has been replaced by a relentless succession of shocks. Even those who ordinarily avoid the daily news cycle are tuning in, sensing that something fundamental is shifting. Put plainly, the international liberal order is either teetering on the brink of collapse – or has already collapsed altogether, writes Dr Helena Ivanov, Associate Fellow, The Henry Jackson Society.

For years, Russia and China have sought to undermine that order. What is far more alarming is that it is now the President of the United States who appears to have pushed it over the edge.

Venezuela provided the first jolt of the year. From the perspective of international law and established norms, Washington’s actions amounted to an unprecedented assault on the sovereignty of another state. Had any other country behaved in this way, the United States would have been the first to denounce it and to rally international opposition. One of the core principles of the post-war liberal order is the prohibition on attacking sovereign states, except under narrowly defined circumstances – such as when the Responsibility to Protect is invoked, and even then almost never unilaterally, and certainly not without UN Security Council authorisation.

Yet the reaction from Western allies, particularly in Europe, was muted. There were expressions of concern, but little more. Ultimately, the calculation was pragmatic: Nicolás Maduro is no democrat, his electoral legitimacy is deeply questionable, and Venezuela is not perceived as a central pillar of the Western alliance. For the EU, damaging relations with Washington over Venezuela was judged too high a price to pay.

Then came Greenland.

Donald Trump has spoken openly about acquiring Greenland for quite some time, but for a long time his remarks were dismissed as bluster. After all, how seriously should one take a president who pens petulant letters to the Norwegian Prime Minister over the Nobel Peace Prize, or who campaigned loudly on grievances about women having their sporting medals taken by men – only to then take the Nobel Peace Prize medal from a female Venezuelan opposition leader who had legitimately won it? Trump’s behaviour has often blurred the line between provocation and parody.

But after Venezuela – and a series of other norm-breaking moves – Europe can no longer afford to dismiss Trump’s intentions as mere theatrics. The EU now finds itself at a crossroads. It knows it cannot confront the United States militarily, nor ignore the immense political and economic costs of opposing Washington. But it also cannot, and must not, acquiesce to the effective annexation of Greenland.

The people of Greenland do not wish to become part of the United States. There is no legitimate legal or moral basis for such a move. More troubling still is the logic underpinning Trump’s case. Strip away the names and geography, and his arguments echo those advanced by Vladimir Putin in early 2022. The language of strategic necessity and security imperatives is eerily familiar. Europe has already paid a heavy price for appeasing revisionist powers. It should not repeat that mistake – even when the pressure comes from its closest ally.

The rules of the international order cannot apply selectively. Annexation does not become acceptable simply because it is undertaken by the United States rather than Russia. Sovereignty is not conditional on who violates it.

While the EU may lack the military means to defend Greenland, it possesses a wide range of diplomatic, economic, and political tools that can and should be deployed to deter Washington. If doing so strains the Transatlantic Alliance, responsibility for that rupture will lie squarely with President Trump. It is he who is undermining the alliance – and the international order along with it.

And indeed, it appears that diplomatic pressure can have an effect. After several heated days in Davos, President Trump has stepped back from his tariff threats against America’s closest allies, claiming that “a framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland” has been agreed between himself and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. The substance of this framework remains unclear, and Denmark has been quick to warn that “the issue is far from over”.

Crucially, the Danish Prime Minister has been unequivocal in insisting that “we cannot negotiate on our sovereignty.” Greenlandic lawmakers have echoed this position in even stronger terms, stating that “NATO in no case has the right to negotiate on anything without us, Greenland. Nothing about us without us.”

Davos may therefore have offered a measure of reassurance, but the devil remains in the details. Without the clear and explicit consent of the people of Greenland, no territory should – or can – be handed to the United States.

President Trump’s approach to the matter thus far is both dangerous and illegitimate. Crucially, however, it is also counterproductive. Yes, the Arctic is of immense strategic importance, and it must not fall under the sway of China or Russia. But the most effective way to prevent that is through cooperation with Western partners, not coercion. By threatening the unity of the West, Trump risks driving America’s allies towards precisely the powers he claims to be countering.

This is a dangerous game – and the costs, should it escalate further, will be borne by far more than Greenland alone.

Share this article: