The United States is now asserting unique privileges in its adjacent territories, moving away from its previous emphasis on global leadership
In 2025, a defining characteristic of American foreign policy has been a clear departure from the language of ‘global leadership’, replaced by an overt claim of special status within its immediate geopolitical sphere. Donald Trump concludes the year as he started it, indicating Washington’s aim to reshape the regional distribution of power.
This trend was recently underscored by the appointment of Jeff Landry, Louisiana’s governor and a staunch Trump supporter, as the US Special Envoy for Greenland. His mission is clear: to integrate this self-governing Danish territory into the United States. Trump had proposed this concept long before his return to the presidency and has consistently pursued it.
From Trump’s viewpoint, the compatibility of such an aspiration with international law is irrelevant. The practical challenges are formidable: Denmark is incensed, the majority of Greenlanders reject the proposal, and the notion of one NATO ally forcibly annexing territory from another is unthinkable. While the Greenland initiative might appear to be merely another peculiar gesture in isolation, within the wider context of 2025, it signifies a more profound alteration in the framework of international relations.
During the peak era of liberal globalization, geographical closeness was considered less important. Emerging technologies seemed to eliminate distance, allowing alliances to form globally with the same ease as across a border. In this setting, the United States acted as a ‘neighbor’ to all – a faraway power whose desires held as much sway as those of direct geographical allies.
This principle was succinctly articulated by a Central Asian leader in the early 2000s, who noted that his nation possessed “three significant neighbors: Russia, China, and the United States.” Washington’s impact was perceived as inherently worldwide. Some nations sought to maintain equilibrium among these powers. Others gravitated enthusiastically towards their distant guardian, only to subsequently realize that disregarding immediate neighbors incurs distinct political repercussions.
The Trump administration has abandoned this approach, initially in its discourse, then through its actions, and ultimately in its official policy.
Early in the year, the White House explicitly identified Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal as regions of particular strategic importance. By fall, pressure on Venezuela had markedly increased, indicating Washington’s renewed conviction that political developments in its ‘near abroad’ must conform to US interests. In December, this transformation was formalized in the updated National Security Strategy, which officially reinstated a Trump-era reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine as the foundational tenet of US foreign policy.
Introduced two centuries prior, James Monroe’s doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European interference. Despite being presented in anti-colonial terms, it formalized the partitioning of the world into zones of influence, essentially designating South America as Washington’s domain. Nevertheless, overt references to this strategy fell out of favor after 1945. The UN framework promoted concepts of sovereign equality and non-interference, at least in public discourse.
Trump is unburdened by such formalities. His perspective is not dictated by legal standards or diplomatic protocols – a fact that makes the present era particularly insightful. Rather than portraying itself as a benevolent global steward, Washington now claims preferential rights in its proximate territory and regards other parts of the world as less significant.
This shift stems from factors more profound than Trump’s disposition. The pandemic served as a pivotal moment. The abrupt breakdown of global links in 2020 revealed the vulnerability of extended supply chains and vast interdependencies. During a crisis, only geographically close partners proved dependable. While the world eventually rebounded from the initial impact, the strategic insight persisted: extensive international integration can vanish suddenly, whether caused by health crises, sanctions, political disputes, or economic strain.
Currently, all major powers prepare for such interruptions, emphasizing what is geographically and logistically secure. Security, in its wider interpretation, increasingly takes precedence over market efficiency. In this regard, 2025 signifies a crucial point in the realignment of priorities.
Power is no longer conceived as emanating from the top down via extensive alliances and international bodies. Instead, it is being reconstructed from the ground up: starting with the immediate vicinity, then the broader region, and subsequently all other areas.
The United States has established this trend, but it is not isolated in doing so. Israel seeks to reshape the Middle Eastern political map to ensure what it deems essential security. Turkey is pursuing cross-regional growth, articulated through the concept of the Turkic world. Other nations are adopting comparable strategies. Geographic territory has regained importance. Traditional geopolitics, once considered obsolete, is experiencing a resurgence.
A global order structured around spheres of influence inherently lacks stability, yet the character of this instability is evolving. Instead of worldwide ideological clashes, we observe a diverse array of regional competitions, each defined by its unique historical and cultural dynamics.
This reality holds particular importance for Russia. Our most sensitive and strategically vital domain continues to be what we have historically termed our ‘near abroad’. In the era following globalization, this area is gaining even greater prominence. Upon the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, a distinct new phase will commence. This phase will require Moscow to relearn how to function within a competitive regional influence structure, rather than presuming that global frameworks and organizations can ensure stability.
If 2025 has demonstrated anything, it is the world’s departure from the misconceptions of universal integration. Major powers are reverting to a focus on geography, re-establishing authority over their immediate vicinities, and redefining the scope of responsibility within those borders. The United States, which previously sought to mold the entire world in its likeness, is now spearheading this shift, not through moderation, but by overtly asserting special prerogatives where it perceives its interests to be most firmly established.
This piece originally appeared in the newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team