Analysis of: Starmer criticises Trump for ‘pressure on me and Britain’ over Greenland
The Guardian | January 21, 2026
The confrontation between US President Trump and UK Prime Minister Starmer over Greenland and the Chagos Islands reveals the deepening contradictions within the Western imperial alliance as competition for strategic military and resource control intensifies. What presents itself as a diplomatic dispute over territorial sovereignty is fundamentally a struggle between capitalist powers over military bases, shipping routes, and resource extraction rights in an era of declining US hegemony and rising great power competition. The Chagos Islands dispute illuminates the colonial continuities underlying contemporary geopolitics. Britain's deal to return sovereignty to Mauritius while maintaining the Diego Garcia military base represents a classic neocolonial arrangement—formal sovereignty transferred while material military control remains with imperial powers. Trump's sudden reversal on supporting this deal, explicitly linked to pressure over Greenland, demonstrates how these arrangements serve as bargaining chips between imperial centers rather than genuine decolonization. The interests of Chagossian people, expelled from their homeland to make way for the base, remain entirely absent from this elite discourse. Starmer's framing of Greenland's future as belonging to 'Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone' obscures Denmark's own colonial relationship with Greenland while positioning the UK as defender of international norms. This ideological positioning serves to legitimate British imperial interests while condemning American expansionism—a case of rival imperialisms cloaking themselves in the language of sovereignty and self-determination. The real material stakes—Arctic resources, strategic military positioning, and control over emerging shipping routes—drive this conflict regardless of the democratic rhetoric employed by either side.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US state apparatus (Trump administration), UK state apparatus (Starmer government), UK Conservative opposition (Badenoch), Danish state, Greenlandic population, Mauritian state, Chagossian displaced population, Military-industrial complex (both US and UK), Arctic resource extraction capital
Beneficiaries: Military-industrial contractors profiting from base construction and maintenance, Resource extraction corporations positioning for Arctic access, Political elites using nationalist rhetoric for domestic legitimation, Defense establishments maintaining strategic positions
Harmed Parties: Chagossian people displaced from Diego Garcia, Greenlandic population facing potential loss of self-determination, Working classes in all nations bearing costs of military competition, Populations in peripheral nations treated as pawns in great power competition
The dispute reveals a hierarchy within the imperial core itself. The US, as declining hegemon, exercises coercive economic pressure (tariff threats) against nominal allies to maintain strategic dominance. The UK, a second-tier imperial power, must navigate between maintaining its 'special relationship' with the US and defending its own diminished but still significant imperial interests. Starmer's rhetoric about 'values and principles' masks the fundamentally transactional nature of inter-imperial relations. The parliamentary exchange between Starmer and Badenoch demonstrates how the ruling class manages internal disagreements—both accept the premises of imperial competition while disputing tactics. Absent entirely are the voices of those whose territories and futures are being negotiated: Greenlanders and Chagossians appear only as objects of policy, never as political subjects.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Arctic resource deposits (oil, gas, rare earth minerals) becoming accessible due to climate change, Strategic shipping routes opening through Arctic passages, Military base infrastructure representing billions in sunk capital, Tariff threats as economic coercion mechanism, Declining US manufacturing base driving competition for resource control
The Diego Garcia base represents a classic example of how military infrastructure serves capital accumulation—securing shipping lanes, projecting power to protect resource extraction, and providing contracts to defense industries. The labor that built and maintains these bases, largely drawn from peripheral nations, remains invisible. The broader struggle over Greenland concerns control over emerging commodity frontiers as Arctic ice melts. Resource extraction under capitalism requires not just capital but military-secured access, explaining why territorial control remains central despite globalization rhetoric. The Mauritian deal exemplifies neocolonial production relations: formal sovereignty transfers while the material apparatus of imperial control—the base itself—remains firmly in Anglo-American hands.
Resources at Stake: Diego Garcia military base (Indian Ocean strategic control), Greenland's rare earth mineral deposits, Arctic oil and gas reserves, Northern Sea Route shipping access, Strategic military positioning vis-à-vis Russia and China
Historical Context
Precedents: US acquisition of territories (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines), British decolonization maintaining neocolonial economic relations, Chagossian expulsion (1968-1973) for Diego Garcia base construction, Monroe Doctrine and US hemisphere dominance claims, Scramble for Africa and colonial partition by European powers, Danish colonization of Greenland since 1721
This conflict reflects the classical pattern of inter-imperial rivalry that Lenin analyzed—capitalist great powers, having divided the world, must periodically redivide it as relative power shifts. The post-WWII US hegemony, which subordinated allied imperialisms into a hierarchical structure under American leadership, is now fragmenting as US economic dominance declines. Trump's crude transactionalism represents an attempt to maintain American primacy through direct coercion rather than the post-war model of consensual hegemony. The focus on Greenland and Arctic resources mirrors the 19th-century scramble for colonies as new commodity frontiers open. Climate change, itself a product of capitalist accumulation, creates new spaces for capitalist expansion—a grim dialectic where environmental destruction generates new opportunities for primitive accumulation.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction lies between the ideology of national sovereignty and self-determination that legitimates the capitalist state system, and the material reality of imperial competition that treats territories and populations as objects to be acquired, traded, or pressured. Both Trump and Starmer appeal to sovereignty—Trump claims US security needs justify Greenland's acquisition, Starmer invokes Danish sovereignty against American expansionism—while both treat Greenlandic and Chagossian self-determination as subordinate to great power interests.
Secondary: Alliance vs. competition: NATO members are simultaneously allies against external threats and rivals for resources and strategic advantage, Decolonization vs. neocolonialism: The Chagos deal offers formal sovereignty while maintaining material imperial control, Democratic legitimation vs. elite management: Parliamentary theatrics between Starmer and Badenoch perform accountability while excluding fundamental questions, Climate change opening new frontiers while threatening existing arrangements
These contradictions are unlikely to find stable resolution within the current framework. Increasing great power competition, resource scarcity, and climate disruption will intensify rather than resolve these tensions. Short-term, expect continued US pressure through economic mechanisms while European powers attempt to maintain autonomy through coordination. The deeper contradiction—between the rhetoric of sovereignty and the reality of imperial hierarchy—may eventually generate movements from below in Greenland, Mauritius, and elsewhere demanding genuine self-determination beyond what either imperial bloc offers. The fragmentation of Western alliance structures could create openings for alternative political possibilities, though also risks of escalation.
Global Interconnections
This dispute connects to the broader reorganization of global capitalism as US hegemony declines and multipolarity emerges. The Arctic has become a new arena of great power competition involving the US, Russia, China, and European states, with resource access and military positioning at stake. China's interest in Greenland's rare earth minerals—essential for renewable energy technology—adds another dimension to American urgency. The Chagos/Diego Garcia situation connects to the US military's global basing network, which underwrites dollar hegemony and secures resource flows from the Global South. The use of tariff threats against European allies over Greenland mirrors the broader pattern of US economic warfare—previously directed primarily at adversaries (China, Iran, Russia) now turned against nominal partners. This represents the unraveling of the post-WWII order where American military protection was exchanged for European economic and political deference. As this bargain breaks down, the internal contradictions of the Western bloc become visible, revealing that solidarity against external 'threats' was always underpinned by material American dominance rather than shared values.
Conclusion
The Greenland-Chagos dispute demonstrates that inter-imperial rivalries persist within and not just between geopolitical blocs. For working-class internationalism, this offers both dangers and opportunities. The danger lies in populations being mobilized behind competing national bourgeoisies in struggles that serve no popular interest—British workers have nothing to gain from either American acquisition of Greenland or British maintenance of neocolonial arrangements in Mauritius. The opportunity lies in the exposure of 'democratic' and 'rules-based' rhetoric as covers for imperial competition. Genuine solidarity would connect displaced Chagossians, Greenlanders facing external determination of their future, and workers in both the US and UK whose resources fund military bases rather than social needs. The contradictions of declining imperial hegemony may create space for such internationalist politics—but only if movements refuse the nationalist frameworks both Trump and Starmer offer.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 92%