An island with sheets of ice is feeling the heat on account of the shifting priorities of one man — the president of the United States of America. Ever since Donald Trump declared his intent of occupying — there is no other word to describe his intent — Greenland, hectic parleys have broken out to stave off yet another crisis of global magnitude. But as of now, a resolution remains elusive. No breakthrough was achieved in Wednesday’s meeting featuring the US vice-president, J.D. Vance, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen; the only relief is that an immediate escalation has been averted. A working group is set to re-engage on the contentious issue in the coming weeks. The warring sides, however, have dug their heels in. Mr Trump remains adamant that American protection is not only necessary to keep Greenland safe from the designs of China and Russia but that the island is also key to the US’s national security itself. There is a general consensus that this rhetoric of protectionism is a flimsy excuse on the part of Mr Trump to get access to Greenland’s substantial mineral riches. His military adventurism in Venezuela has added to the rising concerns. Denmark, which has been in charge of the territory for centuries, understandably insists that it will have none of this.

The ramifications of an aggression on Greenland by the US will be severe on the global order. An attack on a member of NATO from within would bring the alliance — indeed the post-Second World War fraternity — under significant strain. Denmark’s defence ministry has announced it will conduct military exercises in Greenland. At least three NATO member nations — Germany, France and Sweden — stated that they would participate in this endeavour. These tiny cracks within NATO, if they are allowed to deepen, could fundamentally alter relations among the US, NATO and the European Union. Moscow and Beijing would not be unhappy if things took such a turn in the future. But the West and its much-vaunted rules-based order would lie discredited, possibly in a shambles. Perhaps such an existential crisis would spur the cooler heads within the Western world to strive harder for a resolution that will be egalitarian. But their task seems cut out. They are up against an unpredictable US president for whom international stability — even peace — matters less than the troubled fantasy of American dominance.