Trump’s designs on Greenland mark a turning point when we must finally accept the death of respect for international sovereignty and the law
Greenland, though beautiful, has a Falklands feel. This land, so feted by Trump, is largely empty and freezing, with a population around the size of Banbury, Oxfordshire.
Yet it has suddenly become the key actor in a drama about the death throes of the post-war rules-based order and our forced return to a world of imperialist hegemony, dominated by three super-powers: Russia, China and the US.
The democracy habit
The rules-based order has functioned, despite creaking fractures of corruption within its democracies, for long enough for us to have become complacent. The leader of the free world going rogue, like sudden severe illness, or the car engine exploding, maybe could have been foreseen. But as we didn’t look below the surface, the change feels shocking and disorientating.
Complacency explains our lack of preparation for ‘surprises’ like the Covid pandemic and Trump going berserk. Europe skipped the training day simulation where we put on our imperialist expansion goggles to see how the world might look. If we’d set the ‘rogue state’ dial to ‘US’ and observed the western hemisphere draped in its flag, how we’d have laughed – back then.
Imperialist bullies
To understand this new reality, we have to grasp the bully mindset driving imperialist expansionism. Trump’s administration follows the infantile presumption that ‘if I want x’ then ‘x is mine’. They have no concept at all of independent sovereignty. Once they decide that a geographically close country has desirable assets, then, ipso facto, it’s essentially theirs. Hence, from the imperialist standpoint, no justification is needed for grabbing Greenland. Its proximity and resources are sufficient reason for acquisition. Stephen Miller and Donald Trump spoke with incredulity that anyone could fail to see that Greenland, as an asset in their global patch, rightfully should be theirs.
Europe has issued a joint rebuke to Trump for his claims on Greenland. But, in line with the bully mindset, the Trump regime doesn’t care a jot. Aside from the sheer pleasure of expansion, they enjoy the mewling of ‘woke’ Europe in protest against the theft of its member countries. Part of the bully’s game is pleasure in reminding onlookers of their helplessness.
When, as is likely, Trump takes Greenland, it may be incremental. He could simply increase US troops, lower the Danish flag, and then re-name it ‘Trumplandia: Ice Paradise’ on Google maps. Job done.
Trump to the rescue
To achieve this expansionist aim, the Trump regime is already exploiting Greenland’s movement for independence from Denmark. During his 2025 visit, JD Vance spun the line that only by switching to some kind of bilateral agreement with the US would Greenlanders acquire true sovereignty and self-determination.
In return for this ostensibly ‘democratic’ move, the US can mine Greenland for oil and minerals whilst basking in the kudos of having successfully re-claimed a chunk of its ‘rightful territory’. Greenland’s leaders won’t find out until after the deal is done that, like Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela’s new Trump-imposed interim leader, they’ll have to roll over and do Trump’s bidding.
Since Trump sometimes displays a sixth sense that excuses are called for, he may add to this spin the massively dishonest fudge that he’s acquiring Greenland to protect NATO.
Cracking NATO and boosting Russia
Greenland’s independence movement has various advantages for Trump’s administration. It helps to further their actual aim of undermining Europe, but indirectly, by weakening NATO and boosting Russia.
First, sowing further division between Greenlanders on independence will help distract the democratic world by triggering endless media ‘both sides’ debates about ‘where Greenland’s sovereignty really lies’.
Second, with this question posed to the media and to Greenlanders themselves, tiny group though they are, it becomes easier for Trump to spin Denmark’s historic entitlement as a matter of opinion, enabling the US to step in as ‘an equally legitimate but better owner’.
Third, it would enable Europe to save face. Re-defining the power grab as a ‘democratic’ move gives Europe a get out, even if privately no-one believes it, from having to physically go to war over Greenland.
Fourth, taking Greenland would weaken NATO by putting member countries at loggerheads over how to deal with issues like sovereignty, military resistance and responses to Trump.
Fifth, NATO would also be weakened if the US decided to reduce the use of the vital anti-Russia monitoring systems stationed in Greenland.
Sixth, a weakened NATO may attract Greenlanders to the US. With its greater military power, the US could offer more protection against Russia than a NATO-depleted Europe. Since Trump now seems closely allied with Russia, this reasoning is naïve. But it could be part of the US’s sales pitch to Greenlanders. The 2009 “Greenland Self-Government Act” gave Greenlanders the right to self-determination and has a legal Naalakkersuisut to trigger an independence process. If Trump browbeats / bribes Greenlanders into voting to leave Denmark, then Europe has no choice but to accept that outcome.
The body bag issue
Either way, according to Stephen Miller, the world can’t stop the US acquiring Greenland. And he’s right. Europe lacks the military resources needed to challenge the US.
Furthermore, Europe won’t risk creating body bags for a population the size of Banbury. Geopolitics would surely beat principle here.
It’s assumed that Trump’s imperialist intentions won’t be welcomed domestically because they contradict his isolationist election promise. The jury’s still out on how Republicans feel about the Greenland grab. But they support the Venezuelan mission and they’re impressed by Trump’s claim that “we’re going to make a lot of money”. This will get Trump over the line domestically, even if the economic pain kicks in later. But, for now, Republicans see the Venezuela grab as belonging comfortably in the America First project, a view they’ll be encouraged to extend to Greenland.
Also, domestic support for isolationism was a response to significant US military casualties incurred during previous escapades (Iraq, Vietnam). If you remove this risk and replace it with flashy, made-for-TV, ‘super-successful’ abductions and stealthy, incremental land grabs, then the concern dissipates. That Maduro’s abduction caused the deaths of 23 Venezuelans and 32 Cubans hasn’t so far reduced Republican support for US expansionism: body bags are, it seems, ok providing they only contain another country’s citizens.
But why?
Commentators are nevertheless struggling to find adequate motives for Trump’s power grabs. The irony is that re-building Venezuela’s oil industry is an astronomical 10 year project costing tens of billions. Regarding Greenland, Trump already has, or could get, most of the resources he wants there if he just asks nicely. His power grabs are logistically and economically peculiar. So, it’s a puzzle and we have to find further motives.
Acquiring Greenland has been a long-term Trump idea. But, arguably, Trump’s overseas power grabs have been activated at this moment because he can see he’s failing domestically. Since his personality cannot tolerate failure (at all), he has to hide this descent through extravagant displays of success. This is not a calculated distraction but an emotional response, a desperate, wild, big boys club ‘look at me, I’m powerful’ show-off move driven by the macho need to overreach – to push policy, in this case expansion, like a fast car, to the absolute limit of political tolerance and acceptability.
Fighting bears
How should the UK react? Despite fury over Starmer’s unwillingness to criticize Trump, we probably have to accept silence as his only option for keeping the orange despot’s wrath at bay.
Starmer’s reticence can be likened to being trapped by a killer bear: if you try to run you’ll definitely annoy it; if you stand still you’ll probably still annoy it, but there’s a very slim chance you might not. Standing still is a desperate last resort.
But it’s looking like a loser’s game. Note the parallels between Starmer and Maria Machado, exiled Venezuelan opposition leader. Both have heavily flattered a man who responded by throwing them under a bus. Trump has denied Machado the opportunity to step into Maduro’s shoes; his team have also made it clear they want to replace Starmer with Farage at the next election. And they have no compunction about intervening to help bring this about. Starmer is flirting with a man who wants him gone.
Appeasing Trump isn’t likely to halt his Greenland grab, whether it’s sudden or incremental. Nor, more broadly, can Starmer maintain the UK’s traditional role of bridging the European and US parts of the Western Alliance because the alliance no longer exists. He is effectively holding up a bridge on one side only.
Moreover, the worry about Starmer’s reserve, as Raphael Behr notes, is that it might not be a diplomatic cover for essential radical action behind the scenes but just another instance of Starmer’s constitutional reticence – about everything.
The final turning point
Either way, Trump’s Greenland grab symbolises the final turning point, the incontrovertible proof that the US administration has gone fully rogue and we are back in a dog-eat-dog world of imperialist expansionism.
This is terrifying, but we could still do three things: Europe could work fast on gaining as much military, economic and technological independence from the US as possible. European countries could unite and tighten links with other regions (e.g. Canada, India, Australia) to strengthen the democratic, rules-based vision. Finally, the UK media could stop calling those who questioned our relationship to the US all along ‘radical left lunatics’ and, with respect, start listening.
This article is jointly published with West England Bylines.
Left Foot Forward doesn’t have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
