Trump's "performance" tears open cracks in the order; 4888 is not the end for gold prices.
2026-01-22 16:01:58
Greenland has never been put on the negotiating table, yet it has become a special fulcrum for influencing the global geopolitical landscape, indicating that geopolitical turmoil is still ongoing and gold may not stop there.
Trump's renewed interest in acquiring Greenland in early 2026 may not be a genuine desire for this Arctic territory, but rather a political performance intended to send a geopolitical signal.
This seemingly absurd move tore open a crack in the post-war global order, making it clear to the international community that the rules and consensus once regarded as the gold standard are gradually fading, and the foundation of the global order's credibility has begun to loosen. Its influence penetrates the surface of alliance politics and continues to spread across the geopolitical landscape of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
Diplomatic maneuvering goes beyond treaties and deterrence; a political performance can often convey a stronger strategic stance.
This land, possessing strategic Arctic resources and shipping lanes, has been thoroughly shaped into a symbol of geopolitical discourse, a deliberately straightforward strategic signal whose influence has long since extended beyond Denmark to the view of major geopolitical players worldwide.
The US claim that "if it is absent, China and Russia will fill the geopolitical vacuum" is completely unfounded.
According to the 1951 defense agreement, the United States already enjoys full military access rights in Denmark, there is no military threat from China or Russia around Greenland, and there is no conclusive intelligence to support the urgency of the US claims.
However, this strategy still achieved the desired effect. The core leverage was the United States' geopolitical credibility, rather than its actual feasibility, namely, the United States' willingness to break with convention and challenge existing rules for geopolitical interests.
This signal has further widened the rift between the US and Europe. A Gallup poll in January 2026 showed that NATO citizens' approval rating for US leadership was only 21%, the lowest point of Trump's first term.
Several European countries have warned that forcibly changing Greenland's sovereignty would lead to a breakdown in NATO. Germany and France are secretly strengthening Denmark's Arctic deployment to guard against policy uncertainty from Washington, as the foundation of mutual trust within the alliance continues to erode.
Greenland’s core value lies in its role as a stress test of global geopolitical trust.
For decades, the postwar order was built on the consensus that “power is subject to rules,” but this consensus is now on the verge of collapse.
The Ukraine crisis exposed the fragility of borders, the Gaza situation tore apart the conditionality of civilian protection, and the Greenland issue continued this series of events, becoming a classic case of powerful forces sending signals—with international norms loosening, powerful forces are asserting their influence in new ways.
Trump supporters interpreted this move as a "return to geopolitical realism," while RAND Corporation strategists called his second term a "naked exercise in power politics," prioritizing interests over institutions and leverage over legal principles.
True geopolitical realism, however, balances influence and reputation. Unrestrained power will lead to checks and balances, and unpredictable actions will erode mutual trust among alliances—a lesson Europe has long understood.
The Greenland issue has plunged middle-income economies around the world into deeper anxiety.
The security and prosperity of countries such as Australia, Canada, South Korea, and Japan depend on the predictability of the global order—binding rules, unobstructed waterways, and institutions that can restrain powerful forces.
Meanwhile, core powers view the principles as a signal of choice, disrupting the unbalanced transmission: Northern Hemisphere allies accelerate strategic hedging and autonomy, while Southern Hemisphere countries respond with abstention, non-alignment, and other means, confirming concerns about international law's "protection of the strong first" principle.
This game has driven profound changes in the global landscape. What was once strategic ambiguity has solidified into geopolitical risks, borders have been weakened, sovereignty has been labeled with conditions, and small and medium-sized economies have realized that security guarantees stem from their own bargaining power.
Trade routes have become bargaining chips, the functions of international institutions have weakened, countries are choosing diversification, strategic hedging, and silent risk avoidance, the global landscape is becoming increasingly cold and alienated, and the bond that maintains order has shifted from common restraint to independent calculation.
The underlying contradictions cannot be ignored: while the United States condemns Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory and promotes rules and order, it is also reviving the rhetoric of territorial acquisition, eroding the legal basis of its own claims.
This contradiction has been noticed by countries in the Southern Hemisphere. A survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that the international community's perception gap is widening, with international law being seen as a selective tool of power, Gaza serving as a moral reference and Greenland as a strategic reference.
There's no need to believe that Trump really intends to seize Greenland; the core of this geopolitical performance is the transmission and interpretation of signals.
Countries will interpret, utilize, and even modify this signal. Even if they do not believe that sovereignty will change hands, they can still learn from the experience of the game and recognize that international norms are flexible.
The most dangerous thing is that the logic of "the established geopolitical facts are inevitable" has once again gained global space.
Trump's supporters argue that transactional diplomacy effectively avoids geopolitical warfare and exerts influence through geopolitical pressure, making it "cleaner" than the direct use of military force.
However, they overlooked the fact that diplomatic games that have lost their foundation of geopolitical trust are merely geopolitical coercion that has been temporarily postponed. Once coercion becomes the norm in global geopolitical games, it will be difficult for the methods to remain so-called "moderate".
Greenland is ultimately not the target of the deal, but global confidence in the existing order is now up for sale, and the foundation of credit is crumbling as power politics weakens.
The core challenge at present is to recognize the essence: the international system is shifting from following rules to sending signals, from relying on institutions to adapting to changing circumstances, and from collective restraint to individualistic power politics.
History shows that such transitions are rarely stable. US allies and middle-sized economies must choose: to consolidate old consensus and safeguard the existing order, or to prepare for a new order in which geographical weight supersedes international law. These signs may indicate that this geopolitical storm is far from over, and 4888 is not the high point for gold prices this time.
Trump's renewed interest in acquiring Greenland in early 2026 may not be a genuine desire for this Arctic territory, but rather a political performance intended to send a geopolitical signal.
This seemingly absurd move tore open a crack in the post-war global order, making it clear to the international community that the rules and consensus once regarded as the gold standard are gradually fading, and the foundation of the global order's credibility has begun to loosen. Its influence penetrates the surface of alliance politics and continues to spread across the geopolitical landscape of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
A political performance: Greenland becomes a symbol of geopolitical discourse
Diplomatic maneuvering goes beyond treaties and deterrence; a political performance can often convey a stronger strategic stance.
This land, possessing strategic Arctic resources and shipping lanes, has been thoroughly shaped into a symbol of geopolitical discourse, a deliberately straightforward strategic signal whose influence has long since extended beyond Denmark to the view of major geopolitical players worldwide.
The Untenable "Security Garment": The Hollowness of the US Logic
The US claim that "if it is absent, China and Russia will fill the geopolitical vacuum" is completely unfounded.
According to the 1951 defense agreement, the United States already enjoys full military access rights in Denmark, there is no military threat from China or Russia around Greenland, and there is no conclusive intelligence to support the urgency of the US claims.
However, this strategy still achieved the desired effect. The core leverage was the United States' geopolitical credibility, rather than its actual feasibility, namely, the United States' willingness to break with convention and challenge existing rules for geopolitical interests.
Allied rifts widen: European trust in the US continues to erode.
This signal has further widened the rift between the US and Europe. A Gallup poll in January 2026 showed that NATO citizens' approval rating for US leadership was only 21%, the lowest point of Trump's first term.
Several European countries have warned that forcibly changing Greenland's sovereignty would lead to a breakdown in NATO. Germany and France are secretly strengthening Denmark's Arctic deployment to guard against policy uncertainty from Washington, as the foundation of mutual trust within the alliance continues to erode.
Stress test: The global geopolitical trust system is on the verge of collapse.
Greenland’s core value lies in its role as a stress test of global geopolitical trust.
For decades, the postwar order was built on the consensus that “power is subject to rules,” but this consensus is now on the verge of collapse.
The Ukraine crisis exposed the fragility of borders, the Gaza situation tore apart the conditionality of civilian protection, and the Greenland issue continued this series of events, becoming a classic case of powerful forces sending signals—with international norms loosening, powerful forces are asserting their influence in new ways.
So-called "geopolitical realism": a double-edged sword of the logic of power.
Trump supporters interpreted this move as a "return to geopolitical realism," while RAND Corporation strategists called his second term a "naked exercise in power politics," prioritizing interests over institutions and leverage over legal principles.
True geopolitical realism, however, balances influence and reputation. Unrestrained power will lead to checks and balances, and unpredictable actions will erode mutual trust among alliances—a lesson Europe has long understood.
Anxiety in Middle-Sized Economies: Loss of Geopredictability
The Greenland issue has plunged middle-income economies around the world into deeper anxiety.
The security and prosperity of countries such as Australia, Canada, South Korea, and Japan depend on the predictability of the global order—binding rules, unobstructed waterways, and institutions that can restrain powerful forces.
Meanwhile, core powers view the principles as a signal of choice, disrupting the unbalanced transmission: Northern Hemisphere allies accelerate strategic hedging and autonomy, while Southern Hemisphere countries respond with abstention, non-alignment, and other means, confirming concerns about international law's "protection of the strong first" principle.
Shifting Landscape: From Consensus and Restraint to Independent Calculation
This game has driven profound changes in the global landscape. What was once strategic ambiguity has solidified into geopolitical risks, borders have been weakened, sovereignty has been labeled with conditions, and small and medium-sized economies have realized that security guarantees stem from their own bargaining power.
Trade routes have become bargaining chips, the functions of international institutions have weakened, countries are choosing diversification, strategic hedging, and silent risk avoidance, the global landscape is becoming increasingly cold and alienated, and the bond that maintains order has shifted from common restraint to independent calculation.
Deep-seated contradiction: International law reduced to a selective tool
The underlying contradictions cannot be ignored: while the United States condemns Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory and promotes rules and order, it is also reviving the rhetoric of territorial acquisition, eroding the legal basis of its own claims.
This contradiction has been noticed by countries in the Southern Hemisphere. A survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that the international community's perception gap is widening, with international law being seen as a selective tool of power, Gaza serving as a moral reference and Greenland as a strategic reference.
Warning sign: The revival of the logic of "established facts"
There's no need to believe that Trump really intends to seize Greenland; the core of this geopolitical performance is the transmission and interpretation of signals.
Countries will interpret, utilize, and even modify this signal. Even if they do not believe that sovereignty will change hands, they can still learn from the experience of the game and recognize that international norms are flexible.
The most dangerous thing is that the logic of "the established geopolitical facts are inevitable" has once again gained global space.
Behind the irony: The hidden dangers of transactional diplomacy
Trump's supporters argue that transactional diplomacy effectively avoids geopolitical warfare and exerts influence through geopolitical pressure, making it "cleaner" than the direct use of military force.
However, they overlooked the fact that diplomatic games that have lost their foundation of geopolitical trust are merely geopolitical coercion that has been temporarily postponed. Once coercion becomes the norm in global geopolitical games, it will be difficult for the methods to remain so-called "moderate".
Conclusion: A Moment of Choice Amidst Order Transition
Greenland is ultimately not the target of the deal, but global confidence in the existing order is now up for sale, and the foundation of credit is crumbling as power politics weakens.
The core challenge at present is to recognize the essence: the international system is shifting from following rules to sending signals, from relying on institutions to adapting to changing circumstances, and from collective restraint to individualistic power politics.
History shows that such transitions are rarely stable. US allies and middle-sized economies must choose: to consolidate old consensus and safeguard the existing order, or to prepare for a new order in which geographical weight supersedes international law. These signs may indicate that this geopolitical storm is far from over, and 4888 is not the high point for gold prices this time.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
