On February 25, a discussion titled “The Donroe Doctrine: Trump and Greenland” took place at the Moscow venue of the Valdai Club. In the lead-up to the discussion, Oleg Barabanov, Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club, highlighted the increasing importance of the Arctic region in global affairs—which is accompanied by its intensifying militarization. Trump’s claims to Greenland are part of this larger phenomenon, and they became the subject of the Valdai discussion. Participants were invited to share their views on events surrounding Greenland, the economic, strategic, and diplomatic consequences for the trans-Atlantic alliance and the international system as a whole.
Vladislav Vorotnikov, Head of the Department of History and Politics of Europe and America, Head of the Research Programme “Relations with the West in a Changing World Order”, Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University, pointed out that control over Greenland is a matter of prestige and status for Denmark—a country that could be considered a colonial power, albeit not in the traditional sense. For the EU too, averting an American takeover of the territory is a question of immense symbolic importance. He went on to question the traditional rationales used to justify acquiring Greenland: there is nothing standing in the way of increasing US military presence on the territory while avoiding direct control, extracting the range of critical minerals found in Greenland would be an extraordinarily expensive undertaking, and talk of potential for data centres seems highly dubious. Overall, the expert describes Trump’s emerging grand strategy as a doctrine of “international snobbery”, embodied by Trump himself.
Vladislav Maslennikov, Director of the Department of European Problems of the Russian Foreign Ministry, spoke of complicated conditions in the Arctic. The President and Foreign Minister of Russia have reiterated that Russia is not a threat to any party in the Arctic region, nor is it involved in the Greenland crisis, and remains neutral on the matter. The crisis itself is the result of Western-led erosion of international norms, as well as a consequence of the “Russian threat in the Arctic” myth being spread far and wide. The Arctic Council is the last Arctic-centred framework left standing, and it is also going through a difficult time. Russia is a full member of the organisation—it is in favour of constructive dialogue with all parties and remains open to the possibility of the Arctic region becoming the launch pad for improving Russian-American relations within the framework of the spirit of Anchorage.
Igor Istomin, Head of the Department of Applied Analysis of International Problems, MGIMO University, believes that the pursuit of dominance in the Western Hemisphere does not represent an inward turn towards retrenchment—on the contrary, exerting influence over the Arctic and Latin America is a matter of cementing global hegemony. Pressure on Greenland is a tool serving multiple purposes: it is used to distract the Europeans from their opposition to American policy in Ukraine, it is used to coerce them into accepting US leadership in trans-Atlantic decision-making, and it helps project an image of strength on the international stage. Istomin highlights one of the challenges faced by Trump when it comes to integrating Greenland—while Denmark has managed to successfully unite all political factions against American annexation, the US President is yet to find a political force on the territory that would back his ambitions.
Dmitry Novikov, Deputy Head of the Department of International Relations at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, is of the opinion that the “Donroe Doctrine” is undoubtedly important, but it is not a finalized and comprehensive strategy for approaching foreign affairs—the current administration is still experimenting with foreign policy approaches in search of one to call its own. He adds that for many decades, Latin America remained on the periphery of US foreign policy, and the Western Hemisphere would hardly be the first choice when it comes to selecting foreign policy priorities. For Trump, acquiring Greenland is about going down in history, and it is no easy task—attempts at expanding US territorial reach will meet numerous legal, constitutional, and practical challenges.
Radhika Desai, Professor at the Department of Political Studies and Director, Geopolitical Economy Research Group, University of Manitoba, notes that Trump is not a newcomer to amending the Monroe Doctrine—in 1904, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine established the basis for American intervention in the Western Hemisphere. In recent years, it has been a must for every US president to present a foreign policy doctrine of their own—Obama and Biden did so, and Trump is following in their footsteps. Yet references to mass migration, illicit substances, and other threats supposedly emanating from the neighbourhood are but rhetoric—here, Trump’s foreign policy is dictated by domestic incentives, and he utilises foreign policy for domestic ends.
Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, thinks that it is possible to make sense of Trump’s stance on Greenland. While the rationale for seeking control over Greenland has changed over the years, American claims to the territory are not new. As the structure of the international system is undergoing change, the United States wishes to extract more from its European allies, who are often seen as a drag on finite American resources. Greenland would be one such concession, and it should not be presumed that Trump—to whom Diesen refers as the “president of low-hanging fruit”—has backed down and will not attempt to revive the issue. If Europe seeks relevance on the international stage, it must embrace multipolarity instead of blindly attempting to curry favour with the US.
Peter Slezkine, Director of the Russia Program at the Stimson Centre and host of The Trialogue Podcast, attempted to outline Washington’s perspective on events surrounding Greenland. For Trump, Greenland represents the possibility of going down in history, a tool of pressure against allies, a strategic piece of real estate with regard to the Golden Dome and key transport arteries. US dominance in the Western Hemisphere serves as insurance against global threats and a base for projecting power outwards. Slezkine also speaks of the northward expansion that forms the grand narrative of American history. In a way, the true “end of history” for the United States would come with the acquisition of Canada and Greenland, rendering the country master of the entire Northern American subregion.
