Amid ongoing discussions over Donald Trump’s plans for trying to resolve conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, the US president has maintained steady pressure on NATO allies for months.
After his 2024 election victory, Trump again raised the prospect of annexing the Danish territory of Greenland, having first done so in 2019. Once dismissed as outlandish, his renewed push against a key ally sent shockwaves through Europe and the international community.
Trump also declared his intent to make Canada the 51st state in November 2024 and has continued reiterating his stance. Violent conflict between the two nations occurred until the mid-19th century, but aggressive annexation today appears unthinkable due to the logistical challenges, deep ties, and friendly relations between the US and Canada.
Yet Trump has doubled down, with additional remarks about seizing the Panama Canal and Gaza raising further concerns that the world’s most powerful country is seriously entertaining territorial expansion.
Trump’s motivations—whether a trade tactic against Canada, securing greater military rights in Greenland, or other reasons—remain unclear. Still, Washington’s expansionist policy pivot coincides with fast-moving negotiations with Russia to try to end the war in Ukraine, likely by ceding land to Moscow.
Meanwhile, Israel is considering its own border consolidation, including potentially permanent expulsions of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and formalizing its annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights.
Once dismissed as political theater, Trump’s actions now seem part of broader efforts to reshape the discourse on borders, risking ushering in an unpredictable era of renewed territorial conflicts.
Following World War II, the international community largely resisted border changes, even in the context of decolonization, in fear of spreading instability, secession, and conquest. The 1975 Helsinki Accords, in turn, cemented Europe’s postwar borders, discouraging violent changes while allowing for peaceful and mutually agreed adjustments.
Optimists hoped that this model would hold after the Cold War. Germany’s reunification in 1990 was followed by Czechoslovakia’s amicable split in 1992, and Western territorial disputes had by then been reduced to legal battles, as part of a multilateral, institutional approach to conflict resolution that was expected to spread into Eastern Europe and beyond.
However, territorial disputes erupted in the newly independent states emerging from former communist Europe, lacking clear paths for resolution. In the former Soviet Union, Russian-backed separatists in Moldova and Georgia kept conflicts unresolved.
The US and NATO involvement in the former Yugoslavia brought uneasy peace until Western backing of Kosovo’s 2008 independence deepened instability 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 challenges, the US-led efforts to uphold the status quo mostly held until 2022, when Russia launched the largest war of territorial expansion in Europe since World War II.
While Western powers have given billions in military and economic aid to Ukraine and prevented Russia from taking Kyiv, they were unable to prevent Russia’s incursion as it unfolded on NATO’s doorstep. The exposed limits of Western deterrence have since shaken confidence in the permanence of established borders.
If a new era of territorial changes has arrived, Trump seems keen to normalize it and position the US as its main beneficiary. Even increasing de facto control over Greenland or the strategically important Panama Canal without full annexation—while negotiating border changes elsewhere—exposes the weakness of certain borders worldwide and allows the US to assert dominance in a changing world order.
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. On February 18, 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov convened in Saudi Arabia for Ukraine peace talks, excluding Kyiv and European allies from these discussions.
Keeping US commitments to Ukraine vague creates room for Trump to reduce support, but what does he want? 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. After a secret attempt by the US to buy Greenland in 1946, Trump’s open proposal carries some weight.
Russian officials and media have floated the idea of dividing Greenland equally, though more seriously, they believe Washington is pressuring Denmark for greater military access.
Proposals for agreements like a Compact of Free Association with Greenland after its potential independence from Denmark would likely provoke strong reactions from Russia and China, given their growing Arctic military presence. 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.
Still, any territorial agreement between Russia and the US could influence Israel’s territorial ambitions related to Gaza and Syria, after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government 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 subsequent Biden administration upheld, set a precedent for US acknowledgment of Israeli territorial claims. After Assad’s government collapsed, Israeli forces quickly entered the UN-designated buffer zone to strengthen control, while the Israeli government announced plans to double its population there.
The Golan Heights provides Israel with a strategic, elevated military position, critical freshwater reserves, and other natural resources. With Syria’s government collapse and Damascus no longer a major threat, Israel faces little opposition to reinforcing its hold and potentially expelling the UN in the process.
Strengthening its control could also allow Israel to frame its current military operations as a victory, coupled with the weakening of “Iran’s proxy network.”
Despite Assad’s fall, Russia seeks to maintain some military presence in Syria, potentially restraining partners from countering Israeli moves in the Golan Heights while using its influence over Hamas in Gaza to manage 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 pressures regional countries to align. Jordan, which relies on water from the Golan Heights, will likely be compelled to accept Israeli actions, a dynamic that also extends to Gaza.
On February 11, 2025, King Abdullah II of Jordan met with Trump to discuss the resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza after Trump proposed their relocation. 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.
The timeline for these deals remains unclear, but agreements with Russia and Israel could reshape global border norms and trigger uncontrollable consequences as the US withdraws from enforcing territorial integrity. Both Russia and Israel would likely seek further gains.
Beyond Israeli actions, Syria is contending with Turkish control in the north and Kurdish independence movements. 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.
In Africa, Sudan faces territorial disagreements with both South Sudan and Ethiopia, whereas Ethiopia has longstanding disputes with Eritrea and Somalia. Somalia’s deepening internal divisions meanwhile threaten to further fragment the country.
Additionally, the decades-long conflict between Morocco and the Algeria-backed Western Sahara reignited in 2020. During the final weeks of Trump’s first term, the US became the first country to recognize Western Sahara as part of Morocco in exchange for Morocco’s recognition of Israel in December 2020.
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. Dozens of other countries have since offered increasing support for Morocco’s position while withholding full endorsement.
Regardless of whether the US was simply ahead of the curve in Morocco, dangerous escalation looms 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 contest their Himalayan border, despite recent de-escalation, while India and Pakistan remain locked in their clash over Kashmir, with the nuclear threat heightening the stakes.
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 outbreak of violence could exacerbate the migrant crisis on the US southern border, testing whether American borders are flexible and strong enough to handle added 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.
Trump’s strategy suggests that global territorial management is not worth the effort, with his administration instead focusing on strengthening borders at home while exploiting vulnerabilities abroad.
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.
Whether other countries or future administrations will accept these moves is uncertain. 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. While deals with Russia and Israel over territory may grant the White House political breathing room, what follows is anyone’s guess.
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.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute. It is republished with permission.
