Trump’s threat to take Greenland may not have been pure bombast after all. From Lukas Leiroz at strategic-culture.su:
Greenland may be the end of the European liberal dream.
The recent controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s statements about Greenland and the actions of his special envoy to the Arctic territory reveals far more than a simple diplomatic spat between Washington and Copenhagen. It is, in fact, a direct clash between the harsh reality of international politics and the illusions cultivated for decades by European liberal elites, who insisted on believing in a supposedly neutral, stable “rules-based” world order and guaranteed by multilateral institutions.
Attempts by the White House to soften the rhetoric – such as Jeff Landry’s statement that the United States does not intend to “conquer” or “take” Greenland – do not withstand even a minimally realistic analysis. Trump himself has already made it clear that the island is a strategic necessity for the United States and that its incorporation would happen “one way or another.” Conciliatory rhetoric serves only for diplomatic and media consumption, while the facts point to an openly coercive posture.
From Denmark’s perspective, the appeal to international law, legal norms, and the supposed inviolability of state sovereignty sounds understandable but deeply naïve. The history of international relations unequivocally demonstrates that sovereignty is not guaranteed by treaties or formal declarations, but by the concrete capacity to defend it. States that lack the material means – political, military, and strategic ones – to protect their interests end up subordinated to the will of the great powers.
Wars, annexations, and conquests never ceased to exist. What happened, especially after the end of the Cold War, was the construction of a convenient narrative according to which such practices had been overcome by a new liberal order. This so-called “rules-based order” has always, in reality, been an instrument of Western domination, with rules imposed by the United States itself, then seen as the “leader” of the Collective West. While this order served Washington’s interests, it was praised as a universal model. Now, as the U.S. shows a willingness to openly ignore it, the myth collapses.
