In Social Studies, Debating Greenland and a ‘New World Order’

It is hard to imagine a better way to wind down Colorado Academy’s Advanced Studies and Research (ASR) course, Superpower Politics: China, Russia, and the U.S. in the Modern World, than the real-life global tumult that erupted near the end of the two-trimester course in early 2026. 

Launched several years ago as one of the first in a series of new Upper School electives, the wildly popular offering designed by Upper School Social Studies Department Chair Liz Sarles challenges students to dive more deeply than they ever have into the most pressing international issues of today. So it was only natural that on Tuesday, January 20, Juniors and Seniors in the class were tuned in as President Donald Trump responded to reporters’ questions in the White House Press Briefing Room about his administration’s talk of “taking” Greenland for international security reasons. 

“How far are you willing to go to acquire Greenland?” a reporter asked.

“You will find out,” answered the President.

 

The next day, the students listened again as Trump addressed world leaders at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, speaking further about his desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark. He also criticized NATO, the security alliance established by the United States and European nations in the aftermath of World War II.

“No nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States. We’re a great power, much greater than people even understand. I think they found that out two weeks ago in Venezuela. … Greenland is a vast, almost entirely uninhabited and undeveloped territory, sitting undefended in a key strategic location between the United States, Russia, and China. … We need it for strategic national security and international security. … It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it, and improve it, and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us.”

Trump went on, “…Other presidents have spent, whether foolishly or not, trillions and trillions of dollars on NATO and gotten absolutely nothing in return. … All we want from Denmark … is this land on which we’re going to build the greatest Golden Dome ever built. We’re building a Golden Dome that’s going to, just by its very nature, going to be defending Canada. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way—they should be grateful also, but they’re not.”

 

The Superpower Politics class then absorbed Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s forceful Davos rebuke to the “new world order” proposed by Trump.

“It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great-power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must. … For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection. … This bargain no longer works.”

“Let me be direct,” Carney concluded. “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. … The middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

The Discussion

When Sarles opened up the classroom discussion, she encouraged her students—who were in the midst of completing research for their final papers on a topic in international relations—to reflect on the remarkable two days of rhetoric and its relevance to the theme of the course: the political maneuvering of the world’s most powerful nations.

“You’re all international relations scholars. Think about what is going to happen with Greenland and Trump’s comments on Europe and NATO,” she said. “How does this moment in time connect to the international relations theories we’ve been studying? Are there historical events to compare it to?”

 

Junior Heidi Sohn was first to speak. “Through the lens of strategic narrative theory, I think it’s interesting that Trump has been construing Greenland as important to national security, when the U.S. also has a huge interest in that country’s rare earth minerals as a counter to China. It obviously sounds more urgent and more legitimate to say, ‘We need Greenland for national security.’”

Fellow Junior Ben Bridich observed, “Even the hypothetical of the United States attacking Greenland, a fellow NATO nation, symbolizes what might be a precursor to the end of the liberal world order that was once championed by the U.S.”

 

Junior Theo Mohraz suggested, “The question everyone’s asking is whether NATO needs the U.S. or does the U.S. need NATO—but in any relationship, the benefits should be mutual. Trump says we need Greenland for the Golden Dome, for security, but doesn’t the fact that we have allies in NATO already offer better security?”

Expanding on Mohraz’s point, Junior Henry Lepard added, “It’s a very realist premise—the idea of every nation for themselves, and that nations must dominate through force. Especially after going into Venezuela and capturing Maduro, it’s as if Trump is trying to put all these pieces together to demonstrate American strength.”

 

Senior Fletcher Emerson steered the discussion toward the global political implications of Trump’s rhetoric. “The rest of the world now sees the way a very powerful country is acting, and I think it’s going to change the way other nations choose to act. Maybe China will look at Taiwan differently; or Russia will make a bigger claim on Ukraine. It could mean less safety for a lot of smaller countries.”

“I feel like this could open a new era of colonialism or imperialism,” agreed Junior Eimi Caro. 

 

Junior Carson McConnell continued along those lines: “I wonder, if NATO becomes significantly weakened, will that make Russia feel less threatened? Will it give it the perception that it has the option to take advantage of the situation in Ukraine?”

Senior Johanna Mata replied, “I think what is happening right now with Greenland is heavily undermining U.S. legitimacy. And to Fletcher’s point, it’s definitely a good segue for autocracies like Russia and China to excuse and justify their own larger goals.”

 

Observed Senior William Arney, “It almost seems as if all three superpowers are sort of expanding their power and territory on poorly backed-up claims.”

At the same time, Junior Sophie Cox added, “Russia and especially China now have a really good opportunity to boost their international image. Because if the U.S. appears reckless, that gives Russia and China the chance to look like the saviors, in a way. It even allows them to argue that the United States and democracies aren’t as trustworthy as they seem, and that alliances with autocracies are a better bet.”

Senior Robert Kenney underscored Cox’s point, suggesting, “I think it was after we entered Venezuela that the Chinese Ambassador to the U.N. spoke out against the U.S. and got a lot of applause—which is crazy considering their threat of invading Taiwan. They get the best of both worlds, where they can say we condemn imperialism, on the one hand, but on the other hand they can practice ‘quiet imperialism’ by economically imposing their will on other countries without suffering the blowback that the U.S. or Russia is getting for their actions.”

The Big Picture

Toward the end of class, Sarles steered the discussion in a new direction. “Does it make a difference if the U.S. wants Greenland because they have minerals, because we want to build the Golden Dome to defend ourselves against Russia and China, because we want to defend all of Europe? Is it okay for the U.S. to ‘take’ Greenland in some contexts but not in others?”

“Yes,” the class unanimously agreed.

 

But, argued Senior Luke Allison, “It matters what we mean by ‘taking’ Greenland. Do we come to their aid after an invasion by Russia or China and then just stay there, or is it an outright purchase?”

And then there’s the idea of consent, emphasized Mata. “If it’s a purchase where Denmark agrees, ‘Absolutely—just give us some amount of money and you can have it,’ then that’s very different from a scenario where the U.S. just enters the country and says it’s ours now. The question is whether Greenland wants us there.”

Emerson reflected, “Just like the Cold War changed the way we think about fighting and expansion of power, is Greenland just another way that the use of force has changed? Doesn’t buying a country achieve the same end?”

 

To wrap up the class discussion, Sarles then had students listen again to the Canadian Prime Minister’s speech in Davos. 

“The great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. Our commitment to NATO’s Article 5 is unwavering. [Article 5 is the cornerstone of the agreement, stating that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all, and obligating each ally to assist with actions, including force, to restore security.] Canada strongly calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.”

“You can agree with Carney or disagree,” Sarles concluded. “But it is clear that he is effectively using this moment to communicate just how significant he thinks it is and to effect change. My hope in teaching this class is to frame everything going on in the world around us so you can think about the future and your role in it. The way that Carney turns something small into an overarching statement about the world—that’s your goal in your research and as you move on as a scholar.”