By Vladislav Inozemtsev for Kremlyovsky Bezbashennik
The beginning of 2026 has been marked by a series of seemingly contradictory actions in U.S. policy. First, the White House executed a brilliant operation to change the regime in Venezuela and establish informal control over its resources; shortly after, it did not dare — in a far more favorable situation — to help the people of Iran overthrow the rule of the mad ayatollahs; and then it began trying to get European countries to cede sovereignty over Greenland. These three episodes demonstrate that Trump lacks any coherent guiding principle in foreign policy.
From a purely geopolitical perspective, it would be logical to assume that the U.S. aims to weaken China (and, to some extent, Russia). In this “coordinate system,” the coup in Venezuela, followed by the declaration that Moscow and Beijing should forget about their future interests in the country, looks like a major achievement — but then why was the same not done in Iran, 85% of whose oil exports go to China and which sells huge quantities of weapons to Russia? Against this backdrop, the Greenland case seems downright strange — it is perfectly clear that, unlike Venezuela and Iran, China and Russia have no presence on the island at present, and any potential future presence under NATO unity is entirely illusory and easily preventable.
From a “values” standpoint, the situation looks just as odd. There is no doubt that the most successful operations to strengthen control over new territories can only succeed where and when the local population seeks political and social change. In this sense, Iran and Venezuela were quite similar: the people would either immediately or shortly thereafter have fully supported the U.S. in overthrowing a regime that either kills its citizens en masse or imposes economically unbearable conditions. Yet instead of triumphantly toppling the Iranian regime — which eight (!) U.S. presidents had been powerless against — Trump focused on annexing Greenland, whose population would in no way welcome such a fantastical scenario.
This remarkable inconsistency is surely welcome news to the leaders of China and Russia: although their global image has not improved due to the events of January, nothing prevents them from continuing their course (Putin, for example, did not even mention what happened in Venezuela or Iran in his recent foreign policy speech). Many now fantasize about a war within NATO or a final split between the U.S. and EU over Greenland, but that is unlikely to happen, and the “exotic” nature of American policy will fade — especially since, in a few months, the Congressional election campaign will make all U.S. political actors appear more presentable.
The main lesson of January 2026, therefore, is that the world’s most powerful country has become its most unpredictable, and the world will have to live with that for another three years, without trying to find any coherent logic in its actions…
