Donald Trump is omnipresent - from boardrooms to strategists' dens, to bedrooms and living rooms across the globe. There are those who may vehemently agree with and support him, as he tends to turn everything into a MAGA (Make America Great Again), MAWA (Make America Work Again), or MARA (Make America Rich Again) agenda, driven by the pointed arrows of 'America First'. He has sought to measure his friends, enemies, and frenemies alike-sometimes being much harsher with allies and friends, as he attempts to flog and push the decaying corpse of the so-called liberal order down the very hill the US and the West built themselves.
In the next four years, the US and the world may bear little resemblance to what has existed hitherto. Like jilted lovers, nations are seeking new alliances - even if transient or unpleasant. No wonder that across the US itself, over a thousand demonstrations have taken place in response to the Trumpian quake. Allies of the US - from Canada and Mexico to Europe - are bracing for impact, retreating into their own cocoons in hopes of weathering the after-effects of Trump's excessive actions. Some, like Israel and Hungary, have proven savvy enough to capitalise, while others are still grappling with the tsunami of tariffs and threats. China, perhaps the only likely beneficiary of this disruption, has chosen to call Trump's bluff - an action he dismissed as an "overreaction".
The Four 'U's
If one were to examine the USP of the Trump regime (take it or leave it), especially under what could be dubbed Trump 2.0 - a continuation of Trump 1.0 - four distinct personality and policy traits emerge, summarised here as the Four Us. The first 'U' reflects unorthodox foreign, trade, and security policies, engineering deliberate uncertainty. The second is unilateralism, which undermines established norms. The third understands the dynamics of power games and plays poker to Trump's advantage. Finally, the fourth 'U' represents undermining of sovereignty and multilateralism - the most damaging blow to the international system.
His bold statements - on acquiring Greenland, turning Canada into the 51st state, reclaiming the Panama Canal, renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, and issuing a "hell to pay" warning to Palestinians and Iranians - have generated tremendous concerns over global security and sovereignty. Denmark, a longstanding ally, has felt particular pressure due to Trump's continued interest in acquiring Greenland. Far from abating, his appetite seems undiminished.
The message is clear: get it by hook or by crook, given Greenland's critical geostrategic value for US security. Located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Greenland is the world's largest island. Trump told NBC News that he believes the US can "get" Greenland, "100 percent", and while military force is not his preferred route, "I don't take anything off the table". The current administration sees Greenland as vital to Arctic dominance, military mobility, and mineral extraction.
A Visit To Denmark
I happened to visit Denmark recently on a lecture tour marking 75 years of our diplomatic relations, an event that nearly coincided with the news that US Second Lady Usha Vance would be visiting Greenland, apparently to watch dog-sledding sports. Perhaps a soft, barometric landing. The Danish Prime Minister called it part of an "unacceptable pressure" campaign on the semi-autonomous Danish territory. Denmark was far from amused, especially given the timing and the swirling acquisitional rhetoric impinging on its sovereignty. Matters escalated when Vice President JD Vance visited the US base in Greenland, further irking Danish citizens - a sentiment I witnessed first-hand. Vance repeatedly criticised Denmark's "underinvestment" in Greenland's infrastructure and security, reiterating Trump's position: "This matters to our security, this matters to our missile defence, and we're going to protect America's interests come hell or high water." The question many countries are now grappling with is: how does one confront an unbridled superpower?
Following this, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen visited Greenland - part of the Kingdom of Denmark - which holds immense strategic significance in the Arctic. Trump perceives growing Russian and Chinese footprints in the region, with direct consequences for US and European security. Yet his approach is entirely unacceptable to the Danish people. Frederiksen challenged Trump's ambitions, stating, "You cannot annex another country," even in the name of international security. Feeling hurt and cornered, she remarked: "When you ask our businesses to invest in the US, they do. When you ask us to spend more on our defence, we do. When you ask us to strengthen security in the Arctic, we are on the same page. But when you demand to take over a part of the Kingdom of Denmark's territory, and we are met with pressure and threats from our closest ally, what are we to believe about the country we have admired for so many years?"
Friends No More?
As a key NATO member, Denmark has stood shoulder to shoulder with the US, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But times have changed. The Transatlantic alliance is now facing one of its weakest moments.
The US is also counting on the small population of 58,000 Greenlanders, some of whom may wish to separate from Denmark and align more closely with the US. Some signs of this were evident in recent elections, where pro-US parties gained greater support. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that Greenlanders no longer want to be part of Denmark, and that the US will respect their right to self-determination. The US seems confident in its ability to sway public opinion in its favour - perhaps not a difficult task. Reportedly, staff at the White House budget office are exploring ways to "sweeten the pot" for Greenland, potentially offering more funding than Denmark's current $600 million contribution. This blatant, transactional approach seriously undermines the stability of the Westphalian system and even challenges the principles of the UN Charter.
Yet, the US has never shied away from such adventures, including regime change across various geographies. A more collaborative approach with Denmark could have avoided this acrimony and mistrust, and better ensured compliance with shared security requirements. In the meantime, American exceptionalism - and expansionism - appear here to stay.
(The author is India's former Ambassador to Jordan, Libya and Malta)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
