Greenland, Trump & The Revival Of Power Politics
Historical Analogy and the Return of Power Politics
A World Drifting from Rules to Force
RECENT global developments have reignited an uncomfortable debate among scholars and policymakers: is the international system retreating from rules-based governance toward an older, harsher logic of power? The renewed American interest in Greenland under President Donald Trump, alongside escalating trade threats and unilateral security postures, has prompted comparisons to earlier eras when law yielded to strength.
Such concerns are not new, but their urgency has grown amid weakening multilateral institutions and rising geopolitical competition.
Understanding the Viking Analogy
The comparison to Viking ideology is not meant to romanticise history but to underscore a recurring pattern. Vikings were not merely raiders; they were explorers, traders, and state-builders. Yet their expansion relied heavily on violence, coercion, and the absence of enforceable legal constraints.
In a fragmented medieval world lacking strong international norms, territorial acquisition and dominance were achieved primarily through force. Law followed power rather than restraining it.
The relevance of this analogy lies not in equating modern states with ancient warriors, but in recognising how periods of weak institutional authority often coincide with the resurgence of unilateral action.
Violent Non-State Actors and Historical Parallels
Modern extremist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISWAP, and Al-Shabab also operate in spaces where state authority is contested or collapsed. Like Viking raiders, they exploit power vacuums, impose control through violence, and reject existing legal orders.
History suggests such movements eventually decline when confronted by coordinated resistance and restored governance. The Viking Age ended not by chance, but through stronger states, alliances, and institutionalised authority.
Greenland and Strategic Revivalism
Greenland’s strategic significance is well established. Its location along Arctic routes, proximity to Russia, and role in missile defence make it increasingly valuable as climate change opens new sea lanes.
While Trump’s pursuit of Greenland revived an old American ambition, the methods and rhetoric surrounding it signalled a broader shift. Threats of tariffs against resisting allies and pressure within NATO strained the alliance’s cohesion and challenged long-standing diplomatic norms.
Strain on NATO and Economic Fallout
The Greenland episode exposed fault lines within NATO. European deployments under collective defence obligations, coupled with U.S. economic threats, raised fears of a transatlantic trade conflict. With the European Union preparing retaliatory measures, analysts warned that escalation would undermine post-pandemic economic recovery.
Such tensions reflect a deeper problem: the erosion of trust within alliances once anchored by shared rules rather than raw leverage.
The Decline of Multilateral Arbitration
At the centre of this transformation stands a weakened United Nations. Once the primary forum for dispute resolution, the UN’s authority has diminished amid persistent reform deadlock and selective disengagement by powerful states.
The Security Council’s structure, unchanged despite shifting global realities, has further reduced its legitimacy. In this vacuum, states increasingly act first and justify later.
Domestic Echoes of International Assertiveness
Observers note that external assertiveness has been mirrored domestically. The use of federal force in response to civil unrest, alongside threats to invoke extraordinary legal powers, reflects a broader willingness to bypass restraint in favour of decisive control.
Similarly, confrontations with independent institutions such as the Federal Reserve have raised concerns about executive overreach.
A System at a Crossroads
Supporters argue that these actions reflect realism, not recklessness. The “America First” doctrine, endorsed electorally, prioritises dominance and deterrence over multilateral compromise.
Critics counter that history shows where unchecked power leads. The lesson of the Viking era is not inevitability, but consequence: order eventually returns through rules, institutions, and restraint.
The central question is whether today’s global order will adapt peacefully—or relearn that lesson the hard way.
