Will Trump's 'Polar Pivot' Spark A Superpower Clash?

In a January 7th press conference-a few days before his inauguration-he did not rule out the use of military or economic pressure to achieve his objective,
claiming
it as vital:“People don't even know if Denmark has any legal right to it. But if they do, they should give it up... We need it for national security.” On his social media platform, he
insisted :

“the Free World, need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen.”

For China, a US presence in Greenland threatens its Polar Silk Road initiative and dominance in critical raw materials, essential for advanced technologies. Moreover, the Arctic's warming climate could reduce transit times for Asian trade with Europe, making control over the region increasingly valuable.

Accordingly, three potential scenarios emerge.

First, the US could take a diplomatic approach offering Greenland financial incentives, development packages and autonomy guarantees. The challenge would be convincing Greenlanders that integration with Washington would bring long-term benefits while overcoming Denmark's resistance, which is rooted in history, national pride and strategic concerns.

This would restrict China's access to critical minerals and limit its polar expansion, likely pushing Beijing to deepen partnerships with other Arctic nations, particularly Russia.

Second, the US could leverage economic or geopolitical pressure through increased investments and direct aid, potentially isolating Greenland from Denmark. Washington might also apply political pressure on Copenhagen, presenting Nuuk's alignment with the US as critical for NATO and Arctic security at the Arctic Council under the guise of collective security, thus weakening Denmark's ability to maintain control.

While this somehow mirrors China's methods of expanding influence, it risks alienating European allies and could prompt Beijing to intensify economic engagement with local authorities and mobilize diplomatic opposition, portraying Washington as a destabilizing force.

The most aggressive scenario involves the US asserting de facto control over Greenland's strategic resources or military infrastructure without formal acquisition, bypassing Denmark entirely, and even threatening economic repercussions if Copenhagen resists an American diktat.

This is hardly unprecedented: the US has historically justified interventionist policies under the guise of protecting regional stability. While the foundational
Monroe Doctrine
aimed to prevent European interference in the Americas, the Roosevelt Corollary expanded its scope, legitimizing US intervention in the Western Hemisphere to uphold stability or defend its interests.

This history positions US pressure on Greenland not merely as a territorial ambition but as part of a comprehensive strategic approach to safeguard its sphere of influence.

However, this could trigger an international backlash, particularly from the EU, which would be legally obliged to respond to any sort of hostility or sanctions against Denmark, giving the EU anti-coercion instrument, therefore, unexpected importance.

Yet, based on recent developments in January 2025, the European Commission's response to such threats-while it constantly criticizes China over matters that don't directly affect Europe-exposes both weakness and a lack of clear strategy.

Another issue is China. It might interpret US pressure on Greenland in three ways: as part of a larger geopolitical containment strategy, an assertion of dominance that challenges Beijing's expanding global influence, and a precedent for restricting its ambitions in regions like the South China Sea.

Consequently, while adhering to its non-interference principle, China might weigh the strategic implications of US actions, treating them as part of a broader struggle for global primacy.

In response, China could pursue two approaches, having ruled out inaction. First, it might take assertive countermeasures, such as strengthening military and economic partnerships with Russia while fostering local resistance in Greenland through aid and investments. For Denmark-a key US ally-this development is a very uncomfortable and precarious position to be in.

A more assertive position, even though less probable, warrants consideration. While China might officially frame Greenland as a Danish internal issue-aligning with its non-interference policy-it could struggle to ignore US pressure on the territory. Should Beijing counter with a superior economic offer, it would spark a severe geopolitical confrontation.

Denmark would likely reject such an offer to preserve Western alliances, yet Greenland's response might be more nuanced if China promised substantial infrastructure development and respect for their sovereignty.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

The US would perceive any Chinese attempt to work on alternative solutions with Greenland as a direct threat to its national security and Arctic dominance. Washington would use every available tool to block it, including sanctions and escalating military presence.

China would face reputational risks, as such a bid could be perceived as neo-colonialism, particularly if it disregards the will of the indigenous population or undermines Danish sovereignty. Furthermore, Beijing would struggle to defend its position on sensitive issues like Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan, where it monitors any movements for independence.

Nevertheless, the temptation is hard to resist: strong Chinese involvement would mark a historic shift reaching beyond Arctic geopolitics, challenging Western dominance and potentially altering the Arctic Council's power dynamics. Russia might initially welcome this development but grow wary of Beijing's expanding presence.

Regardless of the outcome, these scenarios underscore Greenland's emergence as a pivotal flashpoint in the broader US-China rivalry. The contest revolves around strategic resources, shipping routes, and military positioning in the Arctic, pushing superpowers to challenge international norms in their pursuit of dominance, reshaping the region into an increasingly disputed geopolitical arena.

Trump's push for Greenland could mark his“Polar Pivot,” a counterpart to Obama's Pivot to Asia, yet focused on Arctic ambitions. For those who doubted Trump's foreign policy vision, his attempt to redefine the Roosevelt Corollary-draped in protectionism, isolationism, and nationalism-offers a clear rebuttal.

If successful, it might even earn the title of the“Trump Corollary.” Far from foolish, his approach reveals a calculated geopolitical strategy lurking beneath the surface of his real estate rhetoric.

Republished with the kind permission of China-US Focus, 2025 ( ). Read the orignal here.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)