Is Trump's Ambition Merely Territorial Expansion

[허만]

Is Trump’s Ambition Merely Territorial Expansion?

Professor Emeritus Heo / Former President of the Korean Association for European Studies

Former President Donald Trump has revealed his intention to incorporate Greenland into U.S. territory. Depending on international public opinion, he has alternated between the idea of outright annexation and that of a forced purchase. The key question is whether this reflects a simple desire for territorial expansion, or whether it is driven by military and security considerations. At present, strong opposition has emerged in the United States and, in particular, across Europe and the European Union. Even members of the Democratic Party, as well as a small number of Republican lawmakers, have criticized Trump’s ambition as immoral and in violation of international law.

At first glance, Trump’s claim appears reminiscent of imperialist practices that were widespread in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when territories were annexed, merged, or seized through force. Viewed against this historical backdrop, his recent remarks certainly deserve criticism. However, his proposal warrants closer and more careful examination.

If the United States were to resort to military force in the face of resistance from several NATO members, Trump’s military and security objectives would almost certainly fail. Should such an attempt proceed, the possibility of NATO’s collapse—an alliance that has endured for over 80 years—cannot be ruled out. The establishment and operation of U.S. military bases intended to block Russia’s projection of influence could become severely constrained. Indeed, some NATO member states have already begun to suggest that support for U.S. forces stationed in Europe should be reduced, and opinions have emerged calling for the recovery of control over U.S. military bases. Currently, the U.S. European Command maintains approximately 67,500 troops across 31 locations in Europe.

From a geopolitical perspective, however, Russia’s navy poses a potential threat to North America through the vast maritime space stretching from the Arctic to the Atlantic Ocean. Greenland represents a critical chokepoint capable of blocking this route.

In response to criticism from major powers such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, Trump has moderated the intensity of his annexation rhetoric. Nevertheless, his underlying intent remains very much alive. This situation should not be viewed or criticized from a single, narrow perspective. Such a limited viewpoint risks weakening the military and security environment of the Western world and may ultimately restrict freedom of navigation in the Arctic. In the long run, it could even undermine liberal forces across the West.

In essence, the free world should understand Trump’s interest in Greenland not merely as a territorial ambition, but as one rooted in a long-term military and security strategy. Recently, Trump stated during discussions with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that a future framework for Greenland and the Arctic region had been prepared. He reportedly indicated that agreement had been reached to significantly expand access rights for the military use and support of Greenland. From a security standpoint, Trump must recognize Denmark’s sovereignty. This approach would avoid the pitfalls of imperialist territorial expansion and lend greater rationality to his argument. On this basis, it would be possible to explore military and security cooperation with Denmark and to expect sufficient support from NATO member states.

It should also be noted that Denmark and the United States signed a Greenland Defense Agreement in 1951. Nonetheless, for many years Russian fleets have approached the island as if it were their own backyard, increasingly interfering with the freedom of navigation and aviation of Western civilian vessels and naval forces. The Western world must take this reality seriously. At this point, what is required is not unilateral U.S. action, but the activation of collective NATO measures to expand military bases and enhance their roles. Only such collective action can block the continued projection of influence by Russia and China and allow the West to freely develop Greenland’s resources.

Rather than pursuing partial annexation of Greenland’s territory, the United States should seek to expand military and security infrastructure across the entire island in order to counterbalance Russian and Chinese influence. If this approach is pursued with reference to the historical British base model in Cyprus, the current Greenland initiative may ensure success.

In particular, Russia has continued to expand its presence around the island, establishing an Arctic Command in 2015 and even creating special forces to confront NATO. Russia has fortified the Arctic region with 13 air bases and more than 10 radar installations—numbers that far exceed those possessed by the United States and NATO allies in the region. To offset this imbalance, the United States has since 2022 concluded defense cooperation agreements with Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

Viewed in this context, U.S. interest in Greenland cannot be reduced to a simple desire for resource development; it clearly reflects broader concerns about the security environment of the Western world.

The European Union and NATO should not support Trump’s territorial annexation ambitions per se, but rather back a long-term strategy aimed at securing freedom of navigation for the West and ensuring access to abundant resources. In this regard, some NATO member states have conducted independent military exercises that risk provoking confrontation with the United States—a dangerous choice. Instead, the United States, the European Union, and NATO should function as a “three-horse carriage,” pursuing a unified military and security strategy.

In parallel, the Western world must adopt smart power diplomacy—an approach grounded on persuasion and consensus-building. Only such diplomacy can contribute not to the partial annexation of Greenland, but to the creation of a comprehensive military and security environment across the island. This path would help deflect accusations of illegality under international law while promoting peace and security in the Western world. From this perspective, Trump’s initiative cannot be dismissed as merely a scheme driven by crude territorial expansionism.