The Greenland Gambit: America's Neo-Colonial Arrogance and the Unraveling Western Order
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: A Crisis Manufactured in Washington
The recent escalation by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Greenland represents more than just another diplomatic spat—it exposes the deep-seated colonial mentality that still permeates Western geopolitics. By openly discussing the acquisition of Greenland through potential force, sharing AI-generated images incorporating it into U.S. territory, and threatening economic retaliation against European allies, the United States has demonstrated a breathtaking disregard for international norms, sovereignty, and the principles it claims to champion globally.
The Facts: A Pattern of Coercion and Disregard
Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark rich in minerals and strategic Arctic positioning, has become the latest target of American expansionist rhetoric. President Trump has declared there is “no going back” on bringing Greenland under U.S. control, refusing to rule out the use of force and framing it as “imperative for National and World Security.” This position was reinforced through leaked private messages and AI-generated images shared on social media portraying Greenland and Canada as part of the United States.
The response from European leaders has been swift and alarmed. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told parliament that “the worst may still lie ahead” and rejected any negotiations over national borders. French President Emmanuel Macron questioned Trump’s intentions in private texts that were subsequently leaked, leading to Trump renewing threats of massive tariffs on French wines and champagne. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used the World Economic Forum in Davos to call for a “new independent Europe,” signaling deteriorating trust in American leadership.
The economic ramifications are already materializing, with the European Union warning it could reactivate tariffs on €93 billion worth of U.S. imports and considering deploying its powerful Anti-Coercion Instrument. Financial markets reacted sharply, with global stocks sliding, gold hitting record highs, and U.S. stock futures falling to one-month lows despite attempts by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to dismiss fears as “hysteria.”
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov further complicated matters by describing Greenland as a “colonial conquest,” highlighting how Trump’s stance creates openings for rival powers to challenge Western unity. Meanwhile, protests in Switzerland ahead of the Davos forum denounced Trump’s policies as imperialistic, and investors revived the “Sell America” trade, signaling declining confidence in U.S. political stability.
The Context: Historical Patterns Repeating
The current crisis cannot be understood outside the context of historical Western expansionism. For centuries, European powers and later the United States have treated territories across Africa, Asia, and the Americas as commodities to be acquired, exploited, and administered without regard for indigenous populations or existing sovereignty arrangements. Greenland’s status as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark represents a carefully negotiated arrangement that respects the self-determination of its predominantly Inuit population—a arrangement now threatened by American exceptionalism.
The Arctic region has become increasingly strategic due to climate change opening new shipping routes and access to untapped mineral resources. Rather than engaging in cooperative development that respects existing territorial arrangements, the U.S. under Trump appears determined to pursue unilateral control through coercion and threat—a pattern familiar to students of colonial history.
Opinion: The Mask of Western Hypocrisy Slips
What makes this episode particularly revealing is how it exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of Western powers that preach rules-based international order while practicing might-makes-right geopolitics. The same nations that condemn territorial expansion by others see no contradiction in pursuing it themselves when strategic interests dictate. This double standard has long been apparent to the Global South, which has experienced centuries of colonial exploitation followed by neo-colonial economic domination.
President Trump’s framing of Greenland’s acquisition as a “security necessity” follows a familiar colonial playbook: manufacturing a security justification for resource acquisition and territorial expansion. This tactic has been used throughout history to justify everything from the British East India Company’s operations to America’s manifest destiny expansion across North America. The language may have modernized, but the underlying impulse remains unchanged: the powerful taking what they want from the less powerful.
Europe’s alarmed response demonstrates that even Washington’s traditional allies recognize the danger of this approach. When the United States treats the sovereignty of allied nations as negotiable, it undermines the very foundation of the international system it helped create. NATO, already strained by Trump’s previous comments about its obsolescence, now faces an existential crisis about whether its leading power respects the sovereignty principles upon which the alliance was founded.
The economic threats against France—targeting its wine and champagne industries—reveal the transactional nature of this administration’s foreign policy. Alliances become conditional, based not on shared values or strategic interests but on immediate economic leverage. This approach fundamentally undermines the stability of international relations and encourages similar behavior from other powers.
Russia’s opportunistic remarks about Greenland being a “colonial conquest” particularly highlight how American actions create openings for rival powers to challenge Western unity. While Moscow’s own territorial ambitions in Ukraine and elsewhere make its criticism hypocritical, the fact remains that Trump’s approach gives geopolitical adversaries moral and rhetorical ammunition.
The Global South Perspective: A Familiar Story
From the perspective of the Global South, this episode looks depressingly familiar. Powerful nations deciding the fate of less powerful territories without regard for their populations or existing arrangements has been the story of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism for centuries. The fact that this is happening between Western allies makes it no less concerning—if America will treat Denmark this way, how much more willing would it be to pressure smaller, less powerful nations?
This incident reinforces the necessity for the Global South to develop independent foreign policy capabilities and strengthen regional alliances that can resist great power coercion. The European response—particularly von der Leyen’s call for a “new independent Europe”—suggests that even traditional U.S. allies are recognizing the need to reduce dependence on American security guarantees and pursue strategic autonomy.
Conclusion: A Watershed Moment in Transatlantic Relations
The Greenland crisis represents a watershed moment in transatlantic relations and global geopolitics. It demonstrates that under Trump, the United States has abandoned even the pretense of respecting the sovereignty of allies when strategic interests are involved. The response from Europe suggests that this approach may permanently alter the balance of power within the transatlantic relationship, accelerating moves toward European strategic autonomy that could fundamentally reshape global politics.
For the Global South, this episode serves as a stark reminder that civilizational states like India and China must strengthen their own capabilities and alliances to resist Western coercion. The international system cannot survive if powerful nations continue to treat sovereignty as conditional and territories as commodities. Either we establish a genuinely rules-based system that respects all nations’ sovereignty regardless of their power, or we return to the law of the jungle where might makes right.
The protests in Switzerland, the market reactions, and the unified European response all suggest that the world is recognizing the danger of Trump’s approach. Now comes the difficult work of building alternatives that can prevent such coercive actions from becoming the new normal in international relations. The future of global stability may depend on whether the international community can successfully resist this latest manifestation of colonial thinking in modern geopolitics.