And We’re Back to Opposing US Bellicosity Again

The new geopolitical world that is rapidly being consolidated will bring with it many messy contradictions. Though the US’s decision to remove Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro last week was a step in the right direction toward Venezuelans regaining their democracy (though, as I have commented, this is looking less and less likely), the US’s betrayal of the West in its expansionist ambitions toward Greenland and Canada has still not disappeared.

I have said many times that if Trump is on your side you should enjoy it while it lasts. After the treacherous appeasement of the Russian Putinist regime during the first half of 2025, influenced by the utopian neo-isolationism of his MAGA, Carlsonite base, the intervention by the US to destroy a nuclear site in Iran in aid of Israel during the Twelve Day War was a sign that this neo-isolationism was not total; Trump had an ear for reality in spite of his base. And this again was also seen with his U-turn on Ukraine as well as his recent strikes against Islamic State in the Sahel. However, after removing Maduro at the last positive act, those days where Trump has been on my side of the argument look like they are coming to an end, especially in the light of his apparent contentedness to allow the Chavista regime to continue under Delcy Rodríguez without elections, betraying the Venezuelan democratic revolution.

The US’s covetous desire for Greenland to become the 51st state (or would it be the 52nd, after Canada?) has become the flagship policy of the new US imperialism. While it could well be that the US has some good strategic reasons for wanting Greenland—either for its mineral wealth, geopolitical significance in countering Russia and China, or both—the boisterous way they’re going about it doesn’t make sense. Pissing off dictators is one thing, but pissing off your allies (especially those who align with your democratic values) is a surefire way to weaken the West’s hand rather than strengthen it. The US would be much better off in alliance-building, while yes, putting pressure on Europe to spend more on defense, than alienating its Atlanticist friends by acting aggressively. In other words, if the result of a US annexation of Greenland is the end of NATO (at the worst of times), then what’s the point? It also undermines the entire reason why the United State is better than either Russia or China as a great power. The US’s respect in its own country and abroad for democratic values and liberty has put it above other ragimes that have been ambivalent about installing dictatorships that support them. If the US turns this trend back into a habit rather than an occasional failing, then the more skepticism it deserves.

The US’s attitude toward Greenland will prove this aggressive approach to be unwise, simply because it is so unnecessary. While the US purchasing Greenland is not new—as several offers have been made in the past—in the context of NATO and Denmark’s membership, US expansionism is pointless and destructive. In fact, the debate over this is similar to the British government’s conundrum over what to do with Cyprus in 1956. As strategically very important in the Mediterranean, the Labour MP Aneurin Bevan asked the government whether they wanted Cyprus as a base or a base in Cyprus. The difference, of course, being the significantly smaller headache of administering the entire island without losing their military presence. And given Denmark’s formal alliance with the US, it is baffling that the US doesn’t try the wiser approach of expanding its military presence in Greenland with the security ties it already has.

The strategic value of Greenland and the US’s concerns, however, shouldn’t just be swept away. It is undoubtedly true that both Russia and China have been expanding their presence in the Arctic region, and that America is needing to play catch up. Countering the influence of these authoritarian powers is essential; however, as pointed out in an article in Foreign Affairs last year by Heather A. Conley, its ownership of Greenland or Canada is not necessary for this. That being said, the question of Greenlandic self-determination cannot be denied in this. Like it isn’t up to Washington whether Greenland becomes another US state, neither is it up to the Danish or Europeans. If the people of Greenland (who for all intents and purposes probably don’t) want to join the US, it is up to them. The easiest solution to all of this is for Denmark to propose an internationally observed referendum for the people of Greenland to decide which, as a tactical response, could undercut the US’s aggression through providing a legitimizing alternative. This would be far better than violating the wishes of the Greenlandic people, on either side.

It is also important to keep in mind that this might just be another example of Trump’s infamous negotiation tactic of ramping up the pressure to the maximum and then doing a deal at the last minute on his terms. We have already seen this with the trade deals against both China and the European Union, against Hamas and the Arab State in Gaza with his now discarded Riviera plan, and in Venezuela with Delcy Rodríguez. And everyone almost always falls for it. In the same vein, his aggressive rhetoric (and real threat) toward Greenland might be just, in the end, to pressure Denmark on giving him almost “total access”, even without US sovereignty. This would be in keeping with the very nature of the new transactional realism the US is now pushing.

From a democratic realist perspective, we need to brace ourselves for regular swings of US foreign policy from our side to the opposing side. This is the nature of Donald Trump in action and it is only going to get messier, as the US will have contradictory policies that will both support the cause of democracy and hinder it; we will have to see what happens in Venezuela to assess if the US intervened on the right side or not. In the face of the mess, strong principles are the only way to make sense of it: where Trump is on our side, we should be supportive, and where he is not, we should oppose. The charge of hypocrisy, no doubt, will come, but analysis on principles always looks like hypocrisy to those who see the world in a very low resolution.

So then, as it appears the US is gradually swinging back to its earlier bellicose position from the beginning of last year, we should be resolved to return back to opposing it, while continuing to advocate for intervention for democratic movements in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere.