By Obaidurrahman Mirsab 

From the stage of the 2026 Davos Summit, leaders of several European nations echoed a strikingly similar message: President Donald Trump’s recent threats against Greenland, combined with his openly anti-European and anti-NATO rhetoric, have hardened European resolve rather than fractured it.

From the sidelines of the Davos Summit, President Trump announced a preliminary “framework” for a future arrangement on Greenland and signaled that tariff threats against European allies would, for now, be paused. But the speed with which Washington shifted from coercion to conciliation—while still imposing a tone of economic paternalism in Trump’s opening remarks at Davos—only reinforces the central flaw of the Trump Corollary: intimidation first, diplomacy later. The reputational damage—to trust, alliance confidence, and credibility—had already been done.

In an increasingly multipolar world, Washington needs to understand a basic truth of power politics: real power lies in leverage and credibility, not intimidation.

The recent threat to Greenland—buoyed by what the Trump administration views as success in Venezuela and driven by the lingering hangover of the Donroe Doctrine—has exposed Washington’s imperial ambitions in an age defined by sovereign nation-states. The Trump administration mistakes noise for dominance.

The renewed American fixation on Greenland is not new, as it has long been viewed as a strategic location, with Washington maintaining military bases there since the Cold War. For years, US interest in the Arctic was exercised quietly. Yet under the Trump Corollary, the Trump administration made the mistake of resorting to tariffs, military posturing, and openly undermining Greenland’s sovereignty and autonomy.

Recent public claims about Greenland’s centrality to deterring China and Russia has fueled a self-inflicted political fiasco. Just as Russia justified its actions in Ukraine under the pretext of deterring NATO, Washington now appears willing to invoke a similar rationale in its posture towards Greenland. In doing so, the United States risks mirroring the very behavior it claims to oppose.

Economic Paternalism on Display 

President Trump began his address at the Davos Summit with the remark, “when America booms, the entire world booms”. To a world already skeptical of Trump’s actions, the statement laid bare how distorted Washington’s worldview has become in an era of mutual economic interdependence. It underscored how the United States has climbed the escalation ladder—from economic coercion to the open imposition of economic paternalism—against some of the most developed economies in the world, all while indulging its own fantasies of indispensability.

The warning that Europe was “not heading in the right direction” further revealed the unilateral logic of the Trump Corollary: sovereignty, peace, and security are guaranteed only so long as they align with Washington’s preferences. Hemispheric thinking may exist on paper, but on the ground those lines are flexible—redrawn whenever it suits American interests. Lecturing allies for failing to show sufficient gratitude for Washington’s role in “ending wars,” while simultaneously bombing others, borders on satire. So too does the casual use of threats that the United States needs Greenland for its security because NATO is no longer sufficient, or hinting that while force might not be used, any military intervention would be “unstoppable.” The imperial mindset is unmistakable.

That Trump chose an economic platform like the World Economic Forum to boast about threatening French President Emmanuel Macron with 25 percent tariffs was not strategic signaling—it was a blatant display of impunity.

Europe Pushes Back: Allies Speak Like Neutrals

At the World Economic Forum, European leaders cautiously fired back.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared on social media:

“Appeasement is always a sign of weakness. Europe cannot afford to be weak—neither against its enemies, nor its ally.”

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, speaking at Davos, was equally blunt:

“I would like to confirm that they (the US) are an ally—but then they have to behave like an ally.”

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney openly announced that Ottawa stands firmly with Greenland and Denmark, while French President Emmanuel Macron went further still, stating:

“We need more Chinese direct investment in Europe in some key sectors.”

Tariffs as Punishment, Not Strategy

President Trump’s suggestion at Davos that would consider softening tariff threats does little to repair the political consequences those threats have already set in motion.

Europe does not view Trump’s tariffs as strategic economic policy. They are widely perceived as punitive measures—retribution for standing with Greenland against Washington’s threats. This perception erodes what remains of America’s moral authority and paralyses its long-standing self-image as the vanguard of global order and peace—a role Washington carried, however imperfectly, in the post-World War II era.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s announcement on the historic free trade agreement between the EU and India underscores how defensive hedging is the new global norm, driven by US unpredictability and economic coercion.

Donroe Doctrine Logic: Threats Everywhere, Strategy Nowhere

Trump’s justification for Greenland—claiming that if the US does not exert control, China and Russia will—reveals something deeper than confidence in strength. It signals imperial panic born from Washington’s growing hysteria over Beijing and Moscow.

The logic of the Donroe Doctrine rests on the belief that threats and military intervention are necessary wherever multipolarity begins to take hold. It drives geopolitics through a philosophy of pre-emption and leaves no room for neutrality. This approach strips nations such as Greenland, Venezuela, and others of their sovereignty and territorial autonomy, reducing them to mere strategic assets to be secured before Moscow or Beijing can exploit them.

Such reasoning reflects Washington’s anxiety over losing control rather than confidence in the strength of American power as a security guarantor. Hemispheric thinking offers diminishing returns in today’s globalized world.

From Guardian to Global Bully

US actions in Venezuela, combined with sustained threats toward Iran and Greenland increasingly assign Washington the image of global bully.

The United States came perilously close to striking Iran not because of an immediate threat, but because coercion and regime change have become an obsession. It was through Saudi, Qatari, Egyptian and Omani intervention that the Middle East was pulled back from the brink of devastation.

As Washington’s threats toward Iran have resurfaced, it has become clear that Trump’s claims of de-escalation in recent weeks were merely tactical. The visible military buildup by the United States in West Asian waters is a textbook example of gunboat diplomacy. Unlike Venezuela, where the logic of hemispheric insulation shielded Washington from major strategic backlash, Iran presents an entirely different gamble. West Asia is a region defined by complex security dynamics, and successive conflicts have rendered the region highly volatile.

Washington’s interventionist tendencies have put the credibility of American security guarantees at stake. When partners who were once expected to follow Washington’s lead are compelled to put the brakes on its unchecked ambitions, the erosion in American geopolitical credibility becomes glaring.

America First, Standing Alone

Trump’s utopia of total leverage and global policing risks delivering a dystopia of American strategic isolation. When coercion becomes routine foreign policy, allies are quick to insulate themselves from  the unpredictability of Washington. This is how isolation takes shape: through quiet recalibration, as partners prepare for crises Washington itself may ignite.

America First cannot survive in a world where America stands alone. Declarations of being “bigger, stronger, better than ever” may satisfy President Trump’s voter base, but do little to stop the decay of trust and reputation on the global stage. Power and influence in today’s modern world are not sustained through gunboat diplomacy or overt interventionism; they require economic and political statecraft that moves.

Obaidurrahman Mirsab is a New Delhi–based student and writer focusing on geopolitics, global political economy, and U.S. foreign policy. He has previously written for International Policy Digest, Global South Forum, The Eastern Herald, among others. His work explores the intersection of power politics, economic coercion, and shifting global order. A selection of his published work is available on Muck Rack: https://muckrack.com/obaidurrahman-mirsab-1/portfolio