In a recent speech, President Donald Trump stated that the United States intends to seize Greenland by any means necessary. He argued that controlling the territory, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, would have a major impact on U.S. national security, particularly given increasing Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. Trump added that if the United States does not act swiftly to take control of Greenland, Russia and China will do so instead.
Professor Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro of the Department of International Relations at Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) considers Trump’s intention to seize Greenland a matter that must be taken seriously. However, he views it as an unrealistic policy.
“Although Greenland is geographically strategic and therefore important for the U.S. defense system, future shipping routes, and access to critical minerals, the desire to ‘seize’ the territory is not a realistic proposition,” he explained on Thursday (Jan. 15).
According to Professor Yuliantoro, the statement reflects Trump’s characteristic style (provocative, blunt, and shock-driven), yet still grounded in geopolitical calculation.
“I think it is more accurate to read Trump’s statement as a bargaining tactic and a form of signal politics, aimed at three different audiences,” he said.
From his perspective, before the American public, Trump is presenting himself as a leader ready to “secure assets” in the name of national security. Toward allies, particularly Denmark, he is sending a pressure signal to align more closely with U.S. security interests in the region.
Meanwhile, to the broader international audience, Trump is seeking to convey a message to Russia and China that the United States will continue to expand its hegemony.
Professor Yuliantoro added that Trump’s insistence on seizing Greenland by any means can also be understood through the lens of his leadership personality, although this is not the sole factor.
He emphasized that Trump’s political narcissism reinforces a tendency toward the personalization of geopolitics, in which territory is treated like property and international relations resemble business negotiations.
At the same time, Trump exhibits a form of transactional expansionism, asserting that the United States can dominate rather than seeking to build an ideological empire.
“Trump has turned Greenland into a ‘stage’; his desire to seize the territory has proven effective in creating turbulence, testing reactions, and shifting the boundaries of diplomatic discourse,” he explained.
In this context, Greenland functions as a symbol of a “major deal” that demonstrates who holds power and who must adapt. However, if Trump were to truly pursue the seizure of Greenland, Professor Yuliantoro warned, the consequences for global stability would be severe.
“Such an action by the United States would constitute an open challenge to state sovereignty and the principle of self-determination,” he added.
Beyond that, the policy would directly undermine the legitimacy of the rules-based international order, potentially destabilizing transatlantic relations. Tensions between Denmark and Greenland would intensify, the European Union would react more forcefully, and NATO would become politically weaker.
“If this were to occur, it would signal the growing marginalization of international norms and law, replaced by material power and coercion. It would mark a shift toward a harsher, more transactional, and risk-laden international order,” Professor Yuliantoro concluded.
Author: Fatihah Salwa Rasyid
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Rajendra Arya
Photograph: AFP