US President Donald Trump has adopted a decision-making style that many observers describe as unusually fast and confrontational and an expansionist foreign-policy posture that signals more than tactical improvisation.
It reflects a deliberate shift towards unilateralism. In fewer than two weeks, his administration has moved from direct action in Venezuela to take control over its oil sector to announcing the US withdrawal from major international organisations and reviving the idea of acquiring Greenland.
This rapid sequence has raised a central question in global politics: is the United States witnessing a temporary political shock, or do these developments represent the consolidation of a new strategic doctrine based on coercion, economic seizure, and territorial ambition?
From the perspective of political theory, Trump’s behaviour fits closely with the doctrine of “offensive realism,” which argues that great powers naturally seek to expand their control whenever opportunities arise in an anarchic international system.
According to this view, states cannot fully trust institutions or alliances to protect their interests, so they attempt to maximise power directly through military presence, economic dominance, or control of strategic geography.
Trump’s actions this year reflect this logic clearly: Venezuela’s oil, international organisations, and Greenland’s territory are treated not as separate issues, but as parts of one strategic equation.
The starting point is Venezuela. The US move to seize control over its key oil assets is not only an economic action but also a political message. It signals that the US is willing to bypass international law and multilateral frameworks to secure strategic resources.
Shortly after Trump’s move against Venezuela, Trump also warned that countries such as Colombia could face similar pressure if they challenge US interests. This was followed by formal steps towards withdrawal from several international organisations, reinforcing the idea that global institutions are no longer useful tools but obstacles to American freedom of action.
This pattern has created escalation in that instead of gradual diplomacy, Trump now favours shock decisions that change realities quickly before opponents can organise resistance. Scholars of decision-making theory describe this as a “disruptive strategy,” where speed itself becomes a source of power. By acting rapidly, a state can impose new facts on the ground while others are still debating their responses.
Within this context, Greenland reappeared as a strategic issue rather than a diplomatic curiosity. This is not the first time that Trump has raised the idea. At the beginning of his second term in January 2025, he openly suggested that the United States should acquire Greenland, describing it as a rational economic and security investment.
At the time, the idea was widely criticised and then faded from the headlines. In early 2026, however, it has returned in a more concrete and institutional form.
Trump has renewed his controversial claims over Greenland and quickly transformed them into policy measures. Two appointments have been particularly important. Jeff Landry, the governor of Louisiana, has been named special envoy to Greenland. At the same time, Thomas Emanuel Dence from Texas has been appointed head of the US Arctic Research Commission.
These steps indicate that Washington is creating a direct political and strategic channel to Greenland separate from its normal relations with Denmark.
GREENLAND: Greenland’s importance lies in its unique geopolitical position and the fact that it is the largest island in the world, covering about 2.1 million square km yet being home to only around 56,000 people.
Once a Danish colony, it is now a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Despite this political status, its location makes it a key point in the emerging Arctic order. The Northwest Passage runs along its coast, offering new shipping routes between Asia, Europe, and North America. Greenland also lies directly between the United States and Europe, giving it great value in military planning and transatlantic security.
American decisions regarding Greenland have therefore sent strong political signals. Appointing a special envoy specifically to the island had broken with traditional diplomatic practice and weakened Denmark’s role as the main political partner. This suggests that Washington no longer views Greenland as part of a friendly sovereign state, but as a strategic target. In terms of constructivist theory, this represents a change in how the island is “defined” politically from a self-governing society to a strategic object.
The implications are serious. Such a shift challenges the principle of territorial integrity and tests the idea of self-determination. It also introduces a new American approach to the Arctic, where power politics replaces cooperation. Instead of treating the region as a shared space governed by international rules, it becomes an arena of competition and pressure.
Greenland also holds deep importance for US national security. During World War II from 1941 to 1945, the United States effectively controlled the island to prevent a German invasion. In 1946, Washington even offered Denmark $100 million to buy it.
Today, the US operates the Pituffik Air Base in Greenland, one of the most strategic military installations in the Arctic. The base lies roughly half-way between Moscow and New York and hosts missile-warning systems. American military planners see it as a key shield against potential Russian attacks and as a barrier to China’s growing Arctic ambitions.
Geography further strengthens this logic. Greenland’s capital Nuuk is closer to New York than to Copenhagen. In hostile hands, the island could theoretically become a platform for threatening North America itself. Through the lens of securitisation theory, US policymakers have elevated Greenland from a distant territory to a core security issue, thus justifying extraordinary political measures.
Economic factors reinforce this security logic. Greenland contains valuable rare earth minerals, essential for electric vehicles, wind turbines, advanced electronics, and modern weapons systems. Since China controls much of the global supply of these, Greenland represents a possible alternative source.
Climate change has made these resources easier to reach, while Arctic shipping traffic has increased by 37 per cent over the past decade. The island is therefore becoming not only a military asset but also a key piece in the future technological economy.
Yet, Trump’s approach to Greenland has created deep anxiety among US allies. NATO’s reaction has been especially revealing. The alliance has remained largely silent about Trump’s threats to acquire Greenland, which has alarmed European capitals. Reports note that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has a warm relationship with Trump, was unusually absent from public discussion on the issue.
Proposals by European governments to strengthen NATO activity in Greenland have not been adopted, and the alliance has not released any statement affirming Denmark’s or Greenland’s territorial integrity.
DILEMMA: This silence reflects a strategic dilemma. NATO appears to be avoiding open confrontation with Trump in order not to provoke him, yet it risks internal collapse if a member state’s territory is openly threatened by another ally. The alliance now faces a difficult choice between maintaining unity and defending its foundational principles.
European fears increased further after reports of Trump’s sudden arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Officials worried that earlier threats to annex Greenland might no longer be symbolic. Denmark’s ambassador to Washington publicly reminded the US to respect Danish sovereignty, while Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen condemned Trump’s statements as violations of international law.
Tensions rose even more after a prominent America First figure published an image of Greenland wrapped in the US flag with the word “soon.”
Despite these developments, most analysts believe that actual US control over Greenland remains unlikely. Denmark’s firm rejection, the opposition of Greenland’s population, and major legal and political barriers would make such a move extremely costly. Denmark is a NATO member and a historical ally of Washington. Any attempt to seize its territory would create a deep crisis within the alliance and could even lead to its collapse, an outcome that would ultimately weaken US security rather than strengthen it.
Trump’s escalatory decisions reflect a broader transformation in American foreign policy. From Venezuela’s oil to international organisations and now Greenland, power, resources, and geography have replaced institutions and diplomacy as the main tools of strategy.
Greenland stands as a test case for this new approach: a place where realism, economic competition, and territorial ambition intersect. Whether this path will bring long-term strength or strategic isolation remains uncertain, but it has already reshaped how allies and rivals understand the future role of the United States in global politics.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 January, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: