Greenland, Taiwan, and Ukraine: A Case Against U.S. Imperialism and the Hypocrisy of Trump’s Arctic Obsession

Donald Trump’s fixation on Greenland, renewed in recent years, is more than a peculiar headline. It shines a light on a glaring inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy. The former president’s attempt to acquire the resource-rich Arctic island echoes the very imperialistic ambitions the United States condemns in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s territorial claims over Taiwan. While America rallies the global community to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty and Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Trump’s Greenland gambit reeks of hypocrisy. Let me say from the outset, I firmly believe China has no right to threaten Taiwan, Taiwan is a sovereign nation as is Ukrain, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was illegal and Russia needs to pull out and compensate Ukraine. Sovereignty needs to be respected.

How can the U.S., a self-proclaimed defender of freedom and sovereignty, justify aspirations that resemble the very actions it denounces? This article examines Trump’s Greenland proposal through the lens of global geopolitics, drawing comparisons with historical imperialism, current conflicts, and the potential consequences for the Arctic and beyond.

Why Greenland Matters: Resources, Strategy, and Power

Greenland’s allure is undeniable. Beneath its vast ice sheets lie critical resources: rare earth minerals vital for technology, oil and gas reserves estimated in the billions, and fishing stocks that feed global markets. Additionally, Greenland’s strategic location offers unparalleled access to Arctic shipping lanes and serves as a key point for military operations.

Mike Waltz, a close aide to Trump, laid bare the administration’s motivations: “This isn’t just about Greenland; it’s about the Arctic. Russia is vying for dominance. This is about oil, gas, critical minerals, and national security.”

This rationale evokes a historical pattern. In 1867, the U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Alaska, derided initially as “Seward’s Folly,” later became a cornerstone of America’s Cold War strategy. Greenland, too, represents a potential frontier for American influence—but at what moral cost?

The Hypocrisy of U.S. Foreign Policy

Taiwan: Sovereignty in the Crosshairs

China’s claims over Taiwan mirror the language of entitlement heard in Trump’s Greenland rhetoric. Beijing has long considered Taiwan an inseparable part of its territory, ramping up military provocations to “reunify” the island with the mainland. The U.S., positioning itself as Taiwan’s protector, has warned China against invasion and promised military support. President Joe Biden has repeatedly emphasized that America will stand with Taiwan to defend its sovereignty.

Yet, Trump’s Greenland gambit reflects the same entitlement. By expressing a desire to acquire Greenland—regardless of the island’s clear opposition—the U.S. contradicts its own stance on sovereignty. How can America decry Beijing’s aggressive ambitions while entertaining similar notions for its own strategic gains? I reiterate, China has no right over Taiwan.

Ukraine: The Battle for Sovereignty

The parallels between Trump’s Greenland proposal and Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine are equally troubling. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is rooted in a desire to reclaim influence over a territory it considers historically and strategically vital. Moscow’s actions have been condemned worldwide as a blatant violation of international law.

Trump’s Greenland proposal, while less violent, shares the same imperialistic underpinnings. Both involve viewing territories as commodities to be acquired or controlled, disregarding the wishes of their inhabitants. This inconsistency undermines America’s moral authority on the global stage.

Dr. Samantha Greer, a political scientist specializing in international law, explains: “If the U.S. legitimizes such ambitions—even under the guise of purchase—it sets a dangerous precedent. It becomes harder to hold Russia and China accountable for their actions.” And Russia should be held to account. Their invasion of Ukraine should never have happened.

Greenland Speaks: A Voice Ignored

At the heart of Trump’s Greenland obsession lies a glaring omission: the people of Greenland. The island’s 56,000 residents, primarily Indigenous Inuit, have consistently rejected the notion of being “sold” to another country. Greenland’s Prime Minister, Múte B. Egede, stated unequivocally, “We are not for sale.”

Greenland’s population faces systemic challenges, including economic underdevelopment, environmental degradation, and cultural erosion—all legacies of colonialism under Danish rule. Trump’s proposal threatens to perpetuate these injustices, replacing one colonial power with another.

Dr. Anika Sørensen, a sociologist specializing in Arctic communities, argues, “Greenland’s people deserve self-determination, not to be treated as pawns in a geopolitical chess game. Trump’s proposal reflects a disregard for their sovereignty and agency.”

Historical Parallels: The Legacy of Imperialism

Trump’s Greenland gambit is far from unprecedented. History is littered with examples of powerful nations seeking to expand their territories under the guise of strategic necessity.

The Annexation of Hawaii

In 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii, a sovereign kingdom with its own government and culture. The annexation was driven by economic interests and strategic concerns about control of the Pacific. Native Hawaiians were largely opposed to U.S. control, but their voices were ignored.

The Philippines and Puerto Rico

The Spanish-American War of 1898 resulted in U.S. control over the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. These acquisitions were justified as efforts to “civilize” these territories, but they were fundamentally about economic exploitation and military dominance.

Trump’s proposal to acquire Greenland fits squarely within this tradition. It reflects the same disregard for sovereignty and the same prioritization of strategic gain over human rights.

The Arctic Cold War: A New Geopolitical Flashpoint

Greenland’s importance is magnified by its role in Arctic geopolitics. The region is becoming a flashpoint for competition among global powers. Russia has aggressively militarized its Arctic territories, deploying nuclear-powered icebreakers and expanding its naval capabilities. Meanwhile, China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and invested heavily in Arctic infrastructure, including Greenland’s mining sector.

Dr. Thomas Keller, an Arctic policy expert, warns that Trump’s Greenland obsession could exacerbate these tensions. “The Arctic’s challenges—climate change, resource management, and security—require collaboration, not competition. America’s actions could provoke further militarization and destabilization.”

The Moral and Practical Case Against U.S. Ownership of Greenland

Critics of Trump’s Greenland proposal argue that it undermines international norms and jeopardizes America’s global standing.

A Dangerous Precedent

If the U.S. normalizes the acquisition of territories for strategic gain, it risks encouraging other nations to do the same. This could embolden Russia to expand further into Eastern Europe or China to escalate its aggression toward Taiwan. This is what we should keep in mind the most.

Undermining Alliances

Trump’s Greenland gambit also risks alienating allies. Denmark, which maintains sovereignty over Greenland, is a critical NATO partner. America’s aggressive pursuit of Greenland could strain this alliance at a time when unity is essential for countering Russian and Chinese ambitions.

A Better Path Forward

Rather than pursuing ownership of Greenland, the U.S. should focus on strengthening multilateral cooperation in the Arctic. This includes supporting Greenland’s economic development, protecting its environment, and ensuring its people have a voice in decisions that affect their future.

A Hypocrisy Too Great to Ignore

Donald Trump’s Greenland obsession is more than a geopolitical curiosity—it’s a stark reminder of the contradictions at the heart of U.S. foreign policy. While America positions itself as a defender of sovereignty and international law, its actions often reveal a troubling double standard.

If the U.S. truly values freedom and justice, it must abandon the idea of acquiring Greenland and instead work to uphold the principles it claims to champion. Anything less would be an act of hypocrisy too great to ignore—and a betrayal of the very ideals America stands for.

Everything I write about is my own opinion or things I’ve either researched, taken a picture of, seen news about, and want to share. Let’s keep the conversation going, post a comment below.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All fields marked with * must be filled.
Please enter a valid email.