The US senator has been putting pressure on NATO allies for weeks as he continues to deliberate Donald Trump’s programs for trying to resolve problems in Ukraine and Israel.
After his 2024 election win, Trump repeatedly raised the possibility of annexing the Danish province of Greenland, having initially done so in 2019. His new attack on a vital ally shocked Europe and the world community, which he had previously dismissed as absurd.
Trump has reiterated his position and also reiterated his intention to create the state’s 51st express in November 2024. Up until the middle of the 20th century, there was violent conflict between the two countries, but violent annexation is now unthinkable due to operational difficulties, close ties, and pleasant relations between the US and Canada.
Trump has since doubled down, adding that his comments about capturing the Panama Canal and Gaza have heightened fears that the world’s most powerful nation is genuinely interested in expanding its territory.
Trump’s motivations—whether a business strategy against Canada, securing greater military right in Greenland, or another reasons—remain vague. However, Washington’s interventionist policy tilt coincides with fast-moving negotiations with Russia to try to end the war in Ukraine, good by ceding area to Moscow.
Meanwhile, Israel is considering its unique border combination, including probably permanent pogroms of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and formalizing its invasion of Syria’s Golan Heights.
Trump’s actions, which were once seen as social theater, now appear to be a part of wider efforts to alter the debate on borders, which could lead to an unpredictably new era of regional conflicts.
Following World War II, the global community generally resisted border modifications, even in the context of independence, in dread of spreading instability, independence, and conquest. The 1975 Helsinki Accords, in change, cemented Europe’s postwar borders, discouraging harsh shifts while allowing for peaceful and mutually agreed changes.
After the Cold War, aspiring innovators hoped this design would continue. Germany’s unification in 1990 was followed by Czechoslovakia’s affectionate cut in 1992, and European regional issues had by then been reduced to legal fights, as part of a international, administrative approach to conflict resolution that was expected to spread into Eastern Europe and beyond.
Territories erupted in the newly independent states emerging from former communist Europe, despite having no clear ways of resolving them. In the former Soviet Union, Russian-backed separatists in Moldova and Georgia kept conflicts unresolved.
Uneasy peace was brought on by US and NATO involvement in former Yugoslavia until Western support for Kosovo’s 2008 independence sprang up tensions and divided allies.
Similarly, Western-supported independence efforts in Eritrea ( 1993 ) and South Sudan ( 2011 ) led to prolonged violence, while other secessionist and annexation movements continued to test the West’s commitment to managing territorial integrity globally.
Despite these difficulties, the US-led efforts to uphold the status quo largely lasted until 2022, when Russia launched the largest territorial expansion campaign in Europe since World War II.
Russia’s incursion as it unfolded on NATO’s doorstep was unavoidable despite the fact that Western powers have provided billions in military and economic aid to Ukraine and prevented Russia from acquiring Kyiv. Since then, confidence in the permanence of established borders has been shattered by the exposed limits of Western deterrence.
Trump appears eager to normalize it and designate the US as its primary beneficiary if a new era of territorial changes has begun. While negotiating border changes elsewhere, the US asserts dominance in a changing world order and even assumes more de facto control over Greenland or the strategically important Panama Canal.
In his first term, Trump hinted at recognizing Crimea, seized from Ukraine by Russia in 2014, and appears to accept that Ukraine will not return to its pre-2022 or even pre-2014 borders. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio convened in Saudi Arabia on February 18, 2025, to discuss Ukraine peace talks.
What does Trump want, though, given that Trump’s intentions regarding Ukraine remain vague, leaves room for improvement? Cutting costs, positioning the US as a peacemaker, calming international markets and potentially securing access to Ukrainian resources are among the possibilities.
However, crafting a deal that looks like a win for US foreign policy will be difficult, making the perception of Washington’s own territorial expansion key.
While increasing control over Canada seems unlikely, Moscow is” closely watching” Trump’s remarks about Greenland. Trump’s open proposal has some weight, following a covert attempt by the US to buy Greenland in 1946.
Russia’s officials and media have suggested that Greenland should be divided equally, but they take it more seriously because they think Washington is pressuring Denmark for more military access.
Given their growing Arctic military presence, proposals for agreements like a Compact of Free Association with Greenland after its potential independence from Denmark would likely sputter heavily on Russia and China. Moscow’s resistance may be softened by concessions in Ukraine, though this remains uncertain.
Washington’s openness to bilateral territorial adjustments, bypassing multilateral arbitration, will still require Ukraine’s consent and consideration of Greenlanders ‘ ( or any other territory’s ) wishes.
Any US-Russian territorial agreement could have an impact on Israel’s territorial ambitions in Gaza and Syria following Bashar al-Assad’s government’s demise in December 2024.
In 2019, Trump recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, a strategically important Syrian region under Israeli control since the 1967 Six-Day War.
His decision, which the Biden administration later upheld, established a precedent for the US acknowledging Israeli territorial claims. Israeli forces quickly retreated to the UN-designated buffer zone to take control of the country after Assad’s government fell, and the Israeli government announced plans to expand its population there.
The Golan Heights provides Israel with a strategic, elevated military position, critical freshwater reserves, and other natural resources. Israel faces little resistance to reinforcing its hold and potentially expulsion the UN in the process, with Syria’s government collapse and Damascus no longer a significant threat.
Strengthening its influence may also allow Israel to portray its most recent military operations as victories, as well as the deterioration of” Iran’s proxy network.”
Russia wants to keep a military presence in Syria despite the fall of Assad, which could stifle other countries from blocking Israeli incursions into the Golan Heights while using its influence over Hamas in Gaza to control tensions.
By deepening cooperation with Israel—closely tied to Trump—Moscow may hope to secure concessions in Ukraine. On February 24, 2025, Israel was one of 18 countries, including the US, to vote against a UN resolution condemning Russia as an aggressor for its actions in Ukraine.
Trump’s unwavering support for Israel strengthens its position and compels other regional nations to do the same. Jordan, which relies on water from the Golan Heights, will likely be compelled to accept Israeli actions, a dynamic that also extends to Gaza.
After Trump had suggested their relocation, King Abdullah II of Jordan met with Trump on February 11, 2025, to discuss the relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. The King, wary of Jordan’s past instability with Palestinian refugees, firmly rejected Trump’s proposal for large-scale Palestinian resettlement.
However, his offer to immediately take in 2, 000 injured children was a tacit acknowledgment of the feasibility of limited relocation, inadvertently lending a degree of credibility to Trump’s larger proposal.
Although the timing of these agreements is still uncertain, agreements with Russia and Israel could reshape international border laws and lead to uncontrollable consequences as the US withdraws from enforcing territorial integrity. Russia and Israel are likely to increase their gains.
Syria is engaged in conflict with Kurdish independence movements and Turkish control in the north. Kurdish independence aspirations extend into Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, directly clashing with those countries, while Turkey‘s ambitions of a “greater Turkey” include expansive control over Cyprus and the Aegean Islands.
Sudan and Ethiopia have territorial disputes in Africa, whereas Ethiopia has longstanding disputes with Eritrea and Somalia. Meanwhile, the country’s growing internal divisions threaten to worsen.
Additionally, the decades-long conflict between Morocco and the Algeria-backed Western Sahara reignited in 2020. In exchange for Morocco’s recognition of Israel in December 2020, the US became the first nation to do so during Trump’s final weeks of office.
Yet here, Trump appears to have paved the way for a new direction, with Israel recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara in 2023 and France following in 2024. Numerous other nations have since increased their support for Morocco’s position, but they have abstained completely.
Unabhängig of whether the US was simply ahead of the curve in Morocco, a risky escalation is looming elsewhere. China, observing Russia’s potential acquisitions in Ukraine, has numerous territorial disputes it could escalate, a traditional part of its geopolitical strategy.
Tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea, in particular, could lead to clashes with the US and its allies. China and India continue to fight over their Himalayan border despite recent de-escalation, while India and Pakistan continue to be locked in a conflict over Kashmir, with the threat of nuclear war raising the stakes even more.
Closer to home, tensions along the Belize-Guatemala border also carry the risk of escalation. And, since 2023, Venezuela’s growing claims to Guyana’s Essequibo region, 70 % of Guyana’s territory, have marked a significant shift in the Americas.
An increase in violence on the US southern border could worsen the migrant crisis, putting the question on American borders whether they are strong enough to handle additional pressures.
Despite efforts to defend border integrity, colonial-era boundaries, long-established grievances, and sudden state collapses after the end of the Cold War have challenged territorial stability, with the West largely attempting to maintain order.
His administration instead concentrates on strengthening borders at home while utilizing vulnerabilities abroad, which suggests that global territorial management is not worthwhile.
Changes in Ukraine and Israel may not occur overnight, but years of groundwork, coupled with ongoing deliberations, could accelerate the process and potentially include US territorial expansion.
It’s uncertain whether other nations or upcoming administrations will accept these decisions. However, if Washington sets a new standard, it will prompt other nations to pursue territorial changes more openly, inviting ethnic cleansing and even genocides.
Washington’s ability to control this dynamic is unproven, as is its response to emerging foreign disputes and potential internal secession attempts. What will come after agreements with Russia and Israel over territory allow the White House political breathing room, it’s not clear what will happen.
John P Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, DC, and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book,” Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas”, was published in December 2022.
The Independent Media Institute’s Economy for All project produced this article. It is republished with permission.