"We do need Greenland" – and Venezuela?: Q&A with Prof. Dr. Sonja Grimm

The year 2026 also begins turbulently – and once again Donald Trump is at the centre. As early as 3 January, the USA intervened militarily in Venezuela and arrested President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Since then, the country has been governed by a transitional government. The international reaction is divided: Russia, China and Cuba sharply criticised the action and consider it a violation of international law. Canada and parts of the EU, by contrast, see it as a legitimate step in the fight against drug crime and corruption.

At the same time, statements from Washington about Greenland attracted attention. The USA emphasised its strategic interest in the Arctic territory – with regard to security, raw materials and geopolitical position. Concrete military steps have not followed so far, yet the debate led to tensions with Denmark and NATO partners.

Why is this important? At first glance, Venezuela and Greenland have little in common. On closer inspection, however, both cases show similar dynamics: power politics is gaining in importance and existing international rules are coming under pressure. Developments are unfolding at a rapid pace. It is difficult to keep track – who is supposed to see through it all?

To shed some light on the matter, we Chair of International Relations and European Studies asked how the recent developments can be classified from a political science perspective. Professor Dr. Sonja Grimm has agreed to answer our questions. She was supported by Mara Nelegatti. In the following Q&A, it is about Venezuela and Greenland, about the key players, their interests – and what all this means for international politics.

Question 1: How does the current political and social situation in Venezuela and Greenland present itself against the backdrop of recent events?

Venezuela and Greenland are directly affected by the policy of the US administration under President Donald Trump. The USA is enforcing a political change of power in Venezuela through military action, and it is questioning Greenland's political affiliation with NATO partner Denmark. In doing so, the USA is undermining the rules-based international order. Power-political interests and territorial claims are displacing internal democratic negotiation processes and undermining legitimate political procedures. This is not a positive development for Venezuela, nor for Greenland, nor for the international order.

Question 2: Which national and international actors currently play a central role, and what interests are they pursuing? What role does Germany take?

Currently, in particular major powers such as the USA, China and Russia play a central role whilst emerging powers such as Brazil, India or South Africa are claiming a say. The Europeans must assert themselves in this concert of powers.

The USA and China are engaged in a great power competition. It is about access to resources, territories and spheres of influence. US President Trump is attempting to decide this great power competition in his favour through threats, tariffs and new alliances with politically questionable political regimes, whilst at the same time undermining existing alliances with his erratic, power-driven policy and snubbing transatlantic partners. In the short term, he may be successful. In the long term, however, he is squandering trust and political capital. He is undermining the legitimacy that a globally acting hegemon needs in order to enforce its rule.

China, on the other hand, proceeds in a targeted and strategic manner: it is expanding its alliances in the Global South, pursuing an economically oriented foreign policy and expanding its global media network. China is thus systematically building up its hard and soft power.

For the European Union, this results in considerable pressure to adapt. It wants to continue to live up to its normative self-image and pursue its economic policy interests, which becomes significantly more difficult without US support. At the same time, it must free itself from security policy dependence on the USA. Germany takes on an important role in this context. It must live up to its role as a European leading power, not break off dialogue with the USA and at the same time defend the rules-based international order. The Chancellor and Foreign Minister are pursuing these requirements consistently.

Question 3: What significance do recent developments have for international politics?

Recent developments have far-reaching significance for international politics. They contribute to an accelerated erosion of the rules-based order and are accompanied by a normalisation of power politics as a supposedly legitimate instrument of international conduct.

At the same time, multilateral institutions are increasingly losing authority, whilst international politics as a whole is becoming more asymmetrical and less predictable. A normatively shaped German and European foreign policy must align itself more strategically and seek new alliance partners. This is above all an opportunity for countries of the Global South to demand greater global say in the concert of great powers as compensation for their alliance loyalty.

Question 4: To what extent can current events be placed in a larger historical or geopolitical context?

Current events can be placed in an overarching historical and geopolitical context. In doing so, a strongly interest-driven US policy becomes visible, which in its basic features harks back to the Monroe Doctrine and aims at securing US dominance.

At the same time, the end of the liberal post-war order becomes apparent as realpolitik practice. In its place comes a return to classical great power logic, in which spheres of influence, resource control and security interests are at the centre. The rules-based order is applied only insofar as it does not contradict the respective power interests.

Question 5: What possible scenarios for further development appear realistic from today's perspective?

From today's perspective, a further intensification of great power aspirations appears realistic, which is accompanied by a sustained weakening of multilateral institutions. An increasing fragmentation of existing partnerships is to be expected. Furthermore, a regionalisation of order is emerging, in which international politics is less globally coherent and more strongly organised regionally. Overall, it is to be expected that international politics will again be shaped more strongly by power, deterrence and situational coalition-building and less by cooperation established for the long term and rules-based negotiation processes.

What do you think about the situation in Venezuela and Greenland? Discuss with us in the comments or on our social media channels.