It has been more than a year since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office, repeatedly voicing his interest in Greenland, a territory of Denmark. His remarks have triggered strong resistance across Europe, while Washington has once again raised the prospect of using tariffs as leverage.
Despite the backlash, a Singaporean scholar argues that Europe's strategic dependence on the United States—particularly in containing Russia and supporting Ukraine—makes an eventual compromise unavoidable. While such a deal would stop short of any transfer of sovereignty, it could grant Washington greater access to Greenland's resources and a role in decision-making.
（Related：
Netanyahu Accepts Trump's 'Alternative UN' Invitation Before Putin and Xi Respond
｜
Latest
）
No Military Option, but Pressure Remains
Although President Trump encountered technical setbacks during his trip, including reported issues with Air Force One's electronic systems, he still traveled to Europe to attend this year's World Economic Forum in Davos. During the visit, he reiterated that the United States would not resort to military force to obtain Greenland.
Following a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump announced that a framework agreement had been reached, easing immediate concerns in international financial markets.
Great Power Politics Back in Focus
Speaking in Taipei on Wednesday at the 2026 Commonwealth Economic Forum (CWEF), Joseph Chinyong Liow, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, warned that global politics is increasingly shaped by competition among major powers.
Some geopolitical thinkers, Liow noted, argue that the world is moving toward a tripartite order dominated by the United States, Russia, and China—each exerting influence over its perceived sphere. In this scenario, the United States would prioritize the Western Hemisphere, Russia would seek dominance in Europe, and China would extend its reach across East Asia, including Taiwan.
“Whether this order is truly taking shape, or whether it will unfold as smoothly as some expect, remains far from clear,” Liow said.
（Related：
Netanyahu Accepts Trump's 'Alternative UN' Invitation Before Putin and Xi Respond
｜
Latest
）
Greenland as a Strategic Signal
Liow argued that developments in Greenland, along with recent events in Venezuela, underscore a broader reality: major powers are willing to bend or ignore international norms when core interests are at stake.
Europe, he stressed, is unlikely to accept Russian dominance and is already heavily invested in defending Ukraine. This strategic context helps explain why Greenland—despite its small population—has become such a prominent issue in global politics.
“Europe today is under pressure from both sides,” Liow said, referring to Russia and the United States. “If Denmark had to face Washington alone, or if Ukraine had to confront Moscow without support, their situations would be far more difficult.”
Small States in a World of Big Powers
Liow pointed to the Trump administration's National Security Strategy, released several months ago, as further evidence that “great power politics” has returned to the center of U.S. foreign policy. The document emphasizes American interests in the Western Hemisphere and revives elements of the Monroe Doctrine, including what some analysts describe as a Trump-era corollary.
“We are living in a world where power matters,” Liow said. “Not all voices carry equal weight. The reality is that major powers are heard more clearly than smaller states.”
For smaller countries, he argued, survival depends on understanding the interests of major powers and offering value that raises the cost of coercion. Unity among smaller states, he added, can improve their chances, even if it offers no guarantees.
Between Washington and Beijing
Addressing whether Asian nations must ultimately choose between the United States and China, Liow said the situation is more complex than a binary choice. Both powers, he noted, are already acting decisively to advance their own interests—particularly in trade.
At the same time, Liow expressed cautious optimism. Economic interdependence continues to bind major powers together, with U.S. companies reliant on Chinese markets and Chinese firms dependent on American investment.
“Even if major powers attempt to force others to choose sides,” he said, “the more effective response may be to ask whether those powers themselves have truly made that choice.”
You've read it. Now let's talk. Follow us on X. Editor: Penny Wang
