Trump’s offer to purchase Greenland, recently reiterated in a 45-minute call with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, highlights his penchant for transactional diplomacy. He reportedly declared, “America will get Greenland,” positioning the island as a strategic prize. For Denmark, however, this has sparked a diplomatic crisis. While Frederiksen has firmly rejected the notion, Greenland’s strategic location and resources—including rare earth metals, oil, and gas—remain at the core of Trump’s ambitions.
In a world where climate change is reshaping Arctic trade routes, controlling Greenland could give the US an unparalleled advantage in both economic and military terms. By the way, even if the sitting US President does not believe in climate change.
Adding to this, Trump’s claim that Greenland’s residents want to join the US, and his advocacy for Canada to become a US state, reveal his broader vision of sovereignty as malleable. For Trump, national borders and autonomy appear secondary to strategic dominance. While such audacity might play well with his domestic base, it has left allies like Denmark and Canada scrambling to recalibrate their diplomatic strategies.
Greenland’s government has reiterated its desire to remain autonomous, with Prime Minister Múte Egede emphasising their intention to shape their own future. This underscores how Trump’s propositions risk alienating allies while challenging global norms. Trump’s vision of international relations seems less about fostering cooperation and more about projecting dominance through territorial control, resource nationalism, and protectionist trade policies.
Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland reflects a larger trend — the Arctic is becoming the latest geopolitical battleground. With Russia ramping up its military presence and China declaring itself a “near-Arctic state” to expand its Belt and Road Initiative, the region is no longer a frozen frontier but a hotbed of strategic competition. Greenland, as a gateway to the Arctic, is central to this emerging dynamic.
Trump’s attempt to acquire it may be dismissed as headline-grabbing, but it underscores the US’s awareness of the Arctic’s potential to reshape global trade and energy markets. This realignment also brings into question the durability of alliances like NATO and the EU’s Arctic strategies. Denmark’s firm stance against the sale of Greenland reveals a determination to preserve sovereignty, but it also highlights cracks in the Western alliance as countries like Denmark grapple with the increasing assertiveness of both allies and adversaries.
Yet, it would be a mistake to dismiss Trump’s tactics outright. His ability to shift the Overton Window of diplomacy — moving the boundaries of what is considered acceptable or possible — is unparalleled. His approach to NATO, forcing member states to increase funding, and his direct engagement with North Korea have disrupted stagnant norms, even if they yielded mixed results. This capacity to upend traditional diplomacy forces other nations to confront uncomfortable questions: is sovereignty negotiable? Are resources and strategic locations fair game for transactional deals?
Trump’s overtures have left allies questioning the reliability of US commitments. His unilateralism undermines the multilateral frameworks essential for global stability. For instance, recent reports of Trump exploring universal tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act —targeting allies and adversaries alike — only reinforce fears of a looming global trade war. His plan to impose tariffs of up to 60% on Chinese goods and 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico illustrates how trade, under Trump, becomes a weapon for dominance.
In this backdrop, Trump’s alliance with Elon Musk and his use of X as a platform for policy declarations further complicate diplomatic engagement. When major policy shifts are broadcast as tweets, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels, it leaves allies and adversaries scrambling to interpret intentions and formulate responses.
As Trump’s actions leave a trail of strained relationships and geopolitical uncertainty, the world is left grappling with a new reality. Is this the beginning of a future where sovereignty bends to economic and strategic imperatives, or a short-term tempest that will pass? While Trump’s brand of diplomacy breaks old moulds, it is a stark reminder that disruption, while necessary at times, must be tempered with responsibility.
In a world where fractured alliances, climate challenges, and economic instability dominate the agenda, Trump’s audacious moves compel global leaders to adapt to an era where economic leverage and territorial ambition drive the narrative. As the Arctic emerges as the arena of the 21st century’s geopolitical chessboard, Trump’s moves are a reminder that power, like the melting ice, is shifting — and with it, the future of diplomacy. Whether this disruption leads to breakthroughs or costly missteps remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: under Trump, diplomacy is no longer about navigating the ground but reshaping it entirely.
—The author, Dr. Srinath Sridharan (@ssmumbai), is a Corporate advisor & Independent Director on Corporate Boards. The views are personal.
Read his previous articles here
