When Donald Trump revived the idea of acquiring Greenland, many observers-particularly in Europe-were tempted to dismiss it as another example of his trademark political provocation. Similar reactions accompanied his earlier statements on NATO, trade wars, and even the future of long-standing alliances. Yet this time, the response has been notably more restrained and uneasy. The reason is simple: Trump’s renewed focus on Greenland is not a rhetorical stunt, nor is it merely a negotiation tactic. It reflects a broader, internally coherent geopolitical doctrine that can be described as America’s “new globalism.”

This emerging framework differs fundamentally from the globalization model that dominated Western thinking after the Cold War. Whereas classical globalization emphasized open markets, multilateral institutions, and interdependence, Trump’s “new globalism” is unapologetically material, territorial, and power-centric. It is rooted in energy dominance, strategic geography, and the exploitation of competitors’ weaknesses-particularly those of Europe.

At its core, Trump’s approach rests on three interlinked pillars: a reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, the transformation of the United States into an unrivaled energy superpower, and the elevation of America’s status as a genuine Arctic power. Viewed through this lens, Greenland is not an anomaly in Trump’s worldview but a logical focal point.

The Monroe Doctrine was originally conceived as a defensive principle, warning European powers against interference in the Western Hemisphere. Under Trump, this doctrine is no longer confined to historical geography. Instead, it is being reimagined as a broader claim to strategic primacy over regions deemed essential to US security and economic dominance.

This expanded vision of “Greater America” includes not only Latin America but also adjacent strategic zones whose control would secure American supremacy in key domains. Greenland, situated between North America and Europe and commanding access to the Arctic, fits squarely within this logic. From Trump’s perspective, any territory that directly affects America’s security perimeter or its long-term economic competitiveness cannot be left in the hands of actors unable-or unwilling-to defend it.

Trump’s rhetoric underscores this logic. His dismissal of........

© Blitz