Why is the World's Power Structure Suddenly Shifting Towards the Arctic and the Caribbean?

When we look at the headlines, we often focus on the obvious conflicts, like the war in Ukraine, but what's truly fascinating is how global powers, especially the US under a potential Trump 2.0 administration, are quietly targeting distant, strategically crucial locations like Venezuela and Greenland . It might seem disconnected—what does a South American oil state have to do with a frozen autonomous territory near the Arctic Circle? Well, from my perspective, these actions are all part of a single, coherent strategy: solidifying exclusive spheres of influence, often at the expense of established alliances . This isn't just about resource grabs; it's about reshaping the fundamental rules of international engagement, moving away from a "rules-based" liberal order to one where pure strength dictates the law.

This shift became evident when considering Russia’s traditional allies, such as Iran and Venezuela, who suddenly found themselves exposed when the Russo-Ukrainian War demanded Moscow's full attention . For instance, when the Assad regime in Syria faced collapse, all Russia could offer was asylum in Moscow, showing a clear limit to their distant influence . This vulnerability creates opportunities for the US to exert pressure—or, as in Venezuela's case, to aggressively pursue regime change without the risk of Russian interference, because Russia has explicitly stated that intervening in such distant matters is too difficult given the urgent crisis in Ukraine . What’s surprising here is that the US approach—claiming the Western Hemisphere as its exclusive territory and demanding non-interference—mirrors the exact language Putin uses regarding Ukraine and NATO expansion.

This shared worldview between the US and Russia, where each respects the other's "traditional" sphere of influence, hints at a deeper, almost symbiotic relationship . When Trump speaks about his foreign policy, he even suggests he understands why Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion near its borders . This mentality—that major powers should carve up the world—is reminiscent of the Yalta Conference after World War II, a concept some analysts now call "Yalta 2.0" . If you look at the strategic documents from the Trump administration, the core principle is simple: the Western Hemisphere belongs exclusively to the US, and no one should challenge that hegemony . This aggressive focus on the immediate neighborhood explains why the first targets were Mexico, Canada, the Panama Canal, and, crucially, Greenland.

Can Great Powers Ever Truly Coexist Without Competition?

This focus on exclusive spheres inevitably leads us away from Europe, and here’s where the strategy gets really counterintuitive. Despite Russia being the aggressor in Ukraine, official US strategic documents have notably refrained from criticizing Russia; instead, they place the blame for the prolonged conflict on European leaders for having "unrealistic expectations" . The US argument seems to be that Ukraine cannot possibly defeat Russia, so Europe should abandon its prolonged resistance, acknowledge the current reality of the frontlines, and seek an immediate end to the war, which would ultimately be favorable to Russia. This drastically reduced priority for Europe is a major strategic reversal.

I’ve found that many interpret this deliberate de-prioritization as a calculated move to keep Europe weakened and reliant on US defense and energy, but the reality might be simpler: in the US view, the core global powers are now the US, China, and Russia—Europe is no longer considered a top-tier player in this new paradigm . If you look at military figures, the weakness of Europe becomes shockingly clear: European defense forces are dwarfed by their Russian counterparts. For example, the total regular forces of Poland, France, the UK, and Germany are all under 200,000 personnel each, while Russia maintains over 1.3 million active troops.

This massive military imbalance is the central reason why European nations cannot afford to sever ties with NATO, despite heated rhetoric about Greenland . Even though Trump has constantly pushed allies to increase defense spending—now demanding 5% of GDP, up from the long-standing 2% goal—the US still bears the lion's share, footing roughly 65-70% of NATO's total defense bill . So, while European nations like Denmark are strongly opposing any forced sale or takeover of Greenland, threatening to dissolve NATO if the US proceeds, the truth is they simply lack the independent military and financial muscle to follow through on such threats . The current strategic landscape means that for Europe, the power of negotiation is essentially nonexistent.

Why is Greenland the New Jewel in the Crown of Global Competition?

This brings us to Greenland, a colossal island nine to ten times the size of South Korea, currently an autonomous territory of Denmark . Trump’s coveting of Greenland isn't just a quirky aspiration; it’s a keystone in the new Arctic geopolitical competition. The Arctic is quickly becoming the next great frontier, rich with untapped resources—including an estimated 13% of the world's undiscovered oil, 30% of its natural gas, and immense reserves of rare earth minerals and uranium . Securing control over this region is vital for future economic and strategic dominance.

The Arctic is governed primarily by five nations bordering the Arctic Ocean: the US (Alaska), Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, and Russia . Under international law, each nation controls the economic exploitation of resources within its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and can even claim extended continental shelf rights up to 350 nautical miles with scientific justification . What’s astonishing is that Russia already dominates the Arctic, controlling roughly half of the Arctic Ocean coastline and handling the vast majority of Arctic shipping traffic—about 40 million tons annually, contributing 8% of Russia's GDP . Russia also maintains a huge military presence, with 32 permanent military bases compared to the US's approximately 10.

For the US, securing Greenland would fundamentally alter this power balance. By combining Alaska, the Canadian Arctic (which Trump views as part of the US sphere), and Greenland, the US would establish itself as the undisputed co-manager of the Arctic alongside Russia, effectively checking Moscow’s near-monopoly . Furthermore, with the traditional Arctic Council stalled due to the war (it now stands as 7 NATO countries against 1 Russia), Russia has pivoted to partnering heavily with China, which is aggressively redefining itself as a "near-Arctic state" to gain access to resources and shipping lanes . Therefore, seizing Greenland is framed as a critical move to counter the creeping military and economic influence of the Sino-Russian axis in the region.

Could Greenland's Fate Be Decided by Checkbook Diplomacy?

The ultimate decision over Greenland's fate may rest not with global superpowers, but with its small population of just 57,000 people . Although 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the US, a remarkable 60% of residents desire independence from Denmark . This desire for self-determination, while currently tempered by necessary economic support from Copenhagen, creates a profound vulnerability for Denmark . This is the surprising insight: the US could potentially circumvent Denmark entirely by appealing directly to the Greenlandic people.

If the US were to offer an incentive package—perhaps $100,000 per citizen, which totals a mere $5.7 billion—it could sway public opinion dramatically . Given the massive strategic and resource value of the territory (which some estimate might be worth far more), this would be an incredible bargain . If Greenland were to hold a US-backed referendum for independence and choose to join the US, it would create an international legal crisis mirroring Russia's annexation of Crimea, where Moscow prioritized the principle of self-determination over Ukraine's domestic law . This aggressive, transactional diplomacy is the hallmark of the emerging world order, where alliances are secondary to self-interest and economic incentives can reshape geography. The lesson here is clear: in this new era of great power competition, even a small, remote territory can become the deciding factor in who controls the world’s next great economic zone.