{"id":15199,"date":"2026-02-16T14:31:21","date_gmt":"2026-02-16T14:31:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/15199\/"},"modified":"2026-02-16T14:31:21","modified_gmt":"2026-02-16T14:31:21","slug":"donald-trumps-quest-for-greenland-and-the-future-of-multilateralism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/15199\/","title":{"rendered":"Donald Trump\u2019s Quest for Greenland and the Future of Multilateralism"},"content":{"rendered":"

It is unusual for a head of government, especially a president of a great power, to share private messages with other world leaders publicly. Yet, that happened recently between the US President and several of his European colleagues. The chat in question was screenshotted and posted by<\/a> US President Donald Trump to several prominent political figures. Among others, it includes French President Emmanuel Macron, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr St\u00f8re and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.<\/p>\n

The sensational release<\/a> appears to be intentional to expose the private thoughts of European heads of government. It is obviously unusual to anyone with a modicum of common sense, which should prompt the question: Should we actually not be doing this? His bluntness is perhaps not unique in history, but its delivery \u2014 often abrupt and stripped of decorum \u2014 is what many consider a departure from presidential norms.<\/p>\n

Beyond the character, the act is clearly linked to Trump\u2019s ambition to acquire Greenland. A plan that emerged just several days after the controversial unilateral capture<\/a> of Venezuelan President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro by the US military under Operation Absolute Resolve at the capital, Caracas, on January 3, 2026. An operation that was neither approved by Congress nor mandated by the UN, which was followed by Trump\u2019s announcement<\/a> to run the country.<\/p>\n

We can begin by drawing on the case of Venezuela. Throughout various administrations, presidents have conveyed justification for essentially any strategic moves. In Iraq, claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were officially the primary cause<\/a> for the US and allies to topple the regime of President Saddam Hussein. The administration subsequently framed the mission as an effort to liberate the Iraqi people and bring democracy. Another instance: In Libya, civilian protection<\/a> was used as the main rationale for NATO\u2019s intervention, among other factors. The same goes with Venezuela: self-defense against narcoterrorist organizations was used to make the military operation sensible<\/a>. The president himself blatantly and unhesitatingly admitted that the plan to abduct Maduro and control Venezuela was driven by the country\u2019s tremendous oil reserves<\/a>. For context, Venezuela is the country with the most well-known massive oil reserves worldwide.<\/p>\n

Fast-forward: these days record the ongoing dynamics of Trump\u2019s quest to acquire Greenland.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s quest for ownership<\/p>\n

The US recognized Greenland\u2019s autonomy as part of Denmark when the kingdom sold the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) in 1916, a fact worth noting. The document acknowledged<\/a> Denmark\u2019s sovereignty over Greenland. Furthermore, according to Marc Weller of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the recognition was further solidified<\/a> by the 1951 and 2004 Defense of Greenland Agreements with Denmark. These historical records debunk Trump\u2019s claim that the territory is not part of Denmark.<\/p>\n

Another logic playing out that Trump employs is that of national security. The president stated that Russia or China might take over the island. This claim depicts the large picture of Trump\u2019s foreign policy, which can be defined, in a simplified manner, as two approaches. First, it is about securitization. The rationale is that adversaries of the US and its allies are planning to acquire Greenland; it is justifiable for the US to \u201cown\u201d Greenland<\/a>. Despite this, it essentially is established upon an imperialist narrative: that if it was not up to us to occupy, others will do. The potential intervention might be for security reasons for the administration, but diminish territorial sovereignty for others.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the focus is on the practical application of Trump\u2019s worldview. Greenland, as an autonomous region under Denmark, is literally part of the EU and NATO. As Trump opens opportunities to acquire the island \u201cthe hard way\u201d \u2014 clearly defined as options to authorize military operations \u2014 it will not only violate the international order, but also the establishment of NATO itself. Ironically, the US has service members present on Greenland, including in the currently-active Pituffik Space Base, indeed. At the moment, around 150<\/a> service members are on the ground in the island territory. Under past agreements, especially since the Cold War, the US, in fact, has quite extensive access<\/a> to operate military personnel in the island territory.<\/p>\n

If Russia and China are considered adversaries, the administration\u2019s policy becomes even more questionable: why is there a failure to cooperate with NATO allies? Furthermore, what is the justification for the (suspiciously motivated) interest in acquiring Greenland for \u201cprotection\u201d?<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the security treaty is well-known throughout history for its collective defence in Article 5. That is, an armed attack against one member \u201cshall be considered<\/a> an attack against them all.\u201d In the studies of institutional grammar<\/a>, developed earlier by Sue Crawford and Elinor Ostrom, keywords like \u201cshall\u201d are obligatory. It implies rules that are essentially highly required. In the context of NATO, attacks against any of its members trigger the obligation for others to strike back. One could only imagine an alternate timeline where the North Atlantic Alliance is attacked by one of its own, even ironically, its historically founding member<\/a>. Diplomacy seems no longer respected as a means of communication to settle interests; it is rather employed solely to pose aggressive behavior and push personal interests, despite other parties being at stake.<\/p>\n

US hegemony and the future of multilateralism<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s plan for Greenland, therefore, is ambiguous and paradoxical. It might seem unlikely and mind-boggling to come out of the head of government, even to some members<\/a> of his administration. His \u201cstyle\u201d has been typical throughout these years, and this bully-esque foreign policy must be stopped at once.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s threats are leading to more countries, including American allies, embracing multipolarity. It also shows his contempt for international institutions. This is further evident from Trump\u2019s decision to withdraw the US from various international organizations, marking them<\/a> as \u201cwasteful, ineffective, or harmful.\u201d Multilateralism and the rules-based order, which has been the backbone and predominant narrative post-World War II, is unfortunately undermined by its own earliest creator. Figures in the administration, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, reflect an oddly imperialist voice that power matters most<\/a> in foreign relations.<\/p>\n

In addition, scholars have pointed out that this kind of foreign policy poses a danger to the international community. Be it the previous intervention capturing Maduro or intention to annex Greenland \u2014 through<\/a> the \u201ceasy way\u201d or \u201chard way\u201d \u2014 by the US can provide precedents for other great powers: that such moves were in fact allowed and unsanctioned under international law: hence \u201cwe can do it too.\u201d One could only project the potential scenarios occurring with the ongoing situation in Ukraine, with Russia, and the military prowess displayed by China toward Taiwan. It has been clear that democracies and a multilateral rules-based order may only function properly when leaders share common principles and respect them.<\/p>\n

Therefore, what is there to expect? Opposition has come from members of Trump\u2019s own party, who continue to put public pressure on him despite some being name-checked<\/a> on his social media. Speaking of domestic pressures, for instance, Congress must uphold its function to oversee the executive from abusing power. Proposals from its members, like the one initiated in response<\/a> to the military action in Venezuela, despite failing to pass to the Senate, are equally crucial to signal dissent against Greenland\u2019s annexation.<\/p>\n

The administration\u2019s repeated violation<\/a> of international law by executing an unlawful military action against Venezuela, let alone Greenland \u2014 its own ally and NATO member \u2014 should be addressed through these institutional measures. The approach is critical to not only affirm Congress\u2019s war powers but to further ensure no further damage is done to the international community. It is a bipartisan issue more than ever.<\/p>\n

The push for Greenland\u2019s annexation also encourages a global reevaluation of the post-Cold War liberal international order and the ongoing reality of US dominance.<\/p>\n

[Patrick Bodovitz<\/a> edited this piece]<\/p>\n

The views expressed in this article are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"It is unusual for a head of government, especially a president of a great power, to share private…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":15200,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5],"tags":[6007,26,184,73,1584,57,74,76],"class_list":["post-15199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-greenland","tag-annexation","tag-denmark","tag-donald-trump","tag-european-union","tag-foreign-policy","tag-greenland","tag-nato","tag-united-states"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15199\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15200"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}