:Abstracts
The world does not always look like America, yet the contemporary international order can resemble a Wild West. The Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations negotiated a transformation from a progressive globalist rhetoric to a more straightforward realism. The Bush era marked the emergence of a bifurcated strategic view regarding regimes marked by adequate territorial control, state construction, and reasonable liberal orientations. The analysis of Venezuela and Greenland illustrates a qualitative transformation of the international order, highlighting changes in rhetoric, governance, and resource extraction regimes. Through the lens of the Wild West, it becomes possible to consider wider histopolitical orientations such as conservative nationalism, counter-hegemonic leftist post-colonialism, manifest destiny, archipelagic imperialism, and more contemporary notions of order (Kirsch, 2019). The Trump-era Wild West metaphor encapsulates the emergence of an international order built upon resources, extraction, and territorial control. In the absence of hydrocarbons, no international prioritization exists for the Caribbean island. Yet, in a world of rising powers, competing regimes, and climate accidents, the Arctic and Greenland are becoming increasingly salient (Coletta & Raftopoulos, 2018). Geostrategic ambitions transcend the horizontal spatiality of classic realism and embrace a longer time dimension that distinguishes between temporality of territory and resource. Such ambitions are intimately tied to the broader rescaling of governance sought by the global South.
Keywords:
Wild West, Venezuela, Greeland, Frontier Logic, Sovereignty, and External Intervention
Introduction:
The formative Donald Trump years mark the emergence of a restructuring of international order, accentuating the scope, modality, and focus of the United States’ geoeconomic and geopolitical objectives. Rostow’s (1960) initial theorizing on the junctures of ‘frontier’ and ‘state’ periods offers an intuitively helpful analogy for using a ‘Wild West’ metaphor to address the ‘post-global’ governance underpinnings. The dialect of the ‘Wild West’ encapsulates the emergence of a contemporary geopolitical condition where the geopolitical order is hollowed out and a pool of resources, be they energy, food, precious metals, or territory, becomes the main determinant of geoeconomic power. ‘Post-global’ capitalism thus denotes a condition where the neoliberal Washington Consensus is unable to contain the wider fallout of the financialization of the capitalist economy initiated by the Nixon Shock, resulting in savage capitalism and the extrusion of frontier capitalism.
Subsequent Trump-era actions signal a geographical shift of American policy attention away from the conventional Middle East to the wider Western Hemisphere, characterized as a ‘geoeconomically dislocated geoeconomics’. The apparent exception of Europe and the preoccupation with terrorist threats have concealed the salient leaning towards a clearer Western Hemisphere initiative, noticeably articulated through a series of statements on North, Central, and South American geography. Against the American pivot to the more capital- and technology-driven Indo-Pacific, the contemporary notion of the ‘Wild West’ considers a more immediate and pertinent geoeconomic action around the considerable border of Mexico and the Northern Triangle, surrounding the geoeconomic security of the supply-chain and the ongoing precarious situation of Venezuela (Kirsch, 2019).
Theoretical Framework:
Under the Trump administration, a growing body of scholarship has emerged describing an emerging post-global order. Yet the territorial diplomacy undertaken by the United States regarding Venezuela and Greenland under President Donald Trump does not fit easily into that narrative. Both cases seem to indicate an emerging planetary-wide resurgence of Western Frontier-Law like approaches to international relations. Venezuela is framed as a hotly contested territory to be either relinquished or forcibly taken by external actors. Greenland is framed as an empty territory (today often described as sparsely populated) not governed by “strong” international legal norms (Kirsch, 2019). In both cases the territorial targeting of key resources is apparent and invoked regularly by both state and non-state external actors.
The overarching objective of the project is to thoroughly and comprehensively examine how contemporary descriptions, diverse interpretations, and evolving conceptions of the international order are significantly influencing and shaping important political activities and strategic decisions in the international sphere. The primary aim of this examination is to assist in the emergence of greater articulation of ideas, consensus formation among various stakeholders, and resulting collective action in effectively addressing and transforming the pressing global problems that persist across transnational territories. These territories, unfortunately, continue to remain largely ungoverned and thus do not conform to a well-defined post-global order, which is becoming increasingly necessary and vital in our rapidly evolving global landscape influenced by numerous factors.
The reorientation of the vocabulary used in international relations appears to be reflective of significant changes concerning the substance of crucial topological transnational political dynamics observed across all continents. This evolving lexicon underscores the idea that addressing systemic global problems is actively shaping new political frameworks and discourses in every region. The argument for a somewhat under described yet increasingly important planetary-wide persistent hard-fried-range Counter-Global Critical Topography (CCGT) problem expansion is emerging, highlighting the pressing need for unified global counter-action. Such a phenomenon signals not only a shift in language but also a transformation in how we conceptualize and tackle the intricate challenges that transcend borders and require collective responses.
The concept of a CCGT problem refers to large-scale flat-ended transnational territory systematic grouch-systematic mobster politics type phenomena at the movement’s own global center, with the Vertex – Counter-GLOBAL located space to counteract the global Apex Movement Base Counter-Global situated at a country, systematic or regional earth landscape-wide scale extending to any basic society-dirt issues imagery-issues Vertical-Shape Fundamental-Removal to obtain larger CCGT movement-types. Since such extensive vocabulary activities remain critical for undertaking the systematic resolution of major planetary problem-types-by-place, they have become positioned as Global-Critical topicality problems for flooring-advocacy purposes.
The Wild West Metaphor in Contemporary International Politics:
The contemporary reappearance of the Wild West metaphor in international discourse highlights the breakdown of liberal order and the emergence of a new spatial-temporal imagination that reconnects with the geopolitical frontier. The terms of the original analogy; sovereignty and state capacity, intervention and coercion, resonate in the Trump era, offering a touchstone for the analysis of US engagements in Venezuela and Greenland. Framed by the question of whether the country has entered a state of permanent crisis, the subsequent examination explores the ways in which territoriality, frontiers, global governance, and empire interrelate and whether the United States has exited the post–Cold War, post–September 11, or post–global era in favor of something else entirely.
Under the Trump administration, the contours of the metaphor shifted to a new form of extraction, one marked by opportunistic coercive diplomacy, quasi-imperialism by proxy, and a focus on prestige rather than accumulation per se; “extractive” in a lateral sense. The pursuit of acquisitions such as Greenland and the emphasis on the Arctic as a transactions-based focus were neither incidental nor post-hoc. Sanctions and the elaboration of the “Troika of Tyranny” were articulated alongside the Greenland interest, reinforcing the notion that a new frontier logic was indeed in play. The narrative was consequential enough to spur formal agreements to counter and institution-building aimed at the circumpolar region. At another level, it provoked the deployment of strategic lexicon and the building of institutional arrangements that moved the country closer to other regional and global rivals.
Contemporary declarations about national territory, state capacity, and the location of international law occupy a prominent place, and other resource-rich locations have attracted attention as well. The case studies of Greenland and Venezuela support the wider conception of frontier conditions and delineate aspects of order that might otherwise remain obscured. The fresh wave of global articles, speeches, and policy documents on national territory proclaims national ownership of territory and its resources, innovative means of asserting authority, and the emergence of new competitors. The Trump presidency produced a greater resonance of the Wild West analogy, returning policy attention to resources and deployment of an extractive style of strategic engagement. Ownership, control, intervention, and investment in extraction constitute one axis of the “extractive” regime; state capacity remains a second.
Venezuela exemplifies the intersection of resource politics, external intervention, and state capacity from a Wild West perspective, and the examination traces these dynamics (M. Gill, 2019). The academic exploration seeks not merely to identify the contours of policy or the remaining desired “global” character of US engagement, but to understand more deeply what Venezuela recapitulates about contemporary international order. The formal, informal, and private channels through which rival states, private international companies, and illicit networks negotiate rights to national resources also attract policy and scholarship attention.
The broader and more intricate spatial-material understanding of territory, which fundamentally constitutes the basis of order itself, anticipates and heralds an emerging order that is likely to fundamentally devalue various established concepts of state capacity, effective governance, and democracy. This devaluation occurs through the very practices that are deployed to support and maintain these concepts. The two persistent regimes of state structures and intervention strategies are essential elements of the existing world order. Furthermore, any changes in the interconnection between these two regimes are what propel the emergence of new modes of engagement. This reshaping leads to the expansive diffusion of force and influence throughout various global regions, resulting in the rise and establishment of new rival authorities that challenge the traditional status quo.
The Trump-Age Narrative:
Through the lens of the Wild West metaphor, the Trump-era international order; rhetoric, policy, and the post-global order, appears as a hazardous, zero-sum contest for sovereignty, territory, and resources. Within this “frontier” frame, the concept of state and sovereignty takes on a “provisional” character: the state retains formal recognition, yet its capacity to exercise authority and provide security is systematically undermined. Governance arrangements confronting frontier conditions fall along a continuum from “frontier extraction”; extraction by foreign interests with limited local governance involvement and capacity, to “local stewardship,” characterized by domestic governance that emphasizes long-term stewardship. Within the Trump-era, the frame applies to resources such as oil and democracy, and to territory such as Greenland and Venezuela (Biegon, 2019). Another defining aspect of the Wild West metaphor is a paradox of intervention, in which greater extraction or territorial control remains permissible, even encouraged, despite declining authority. This concept serves as a lens for understanding the interaction of resource politics, sanctions, and state capacity in Venezuela and the management of strategic ambitions, governance, and Arctic temporalities in Greenland.
Analysis of the Trump-era narrative reveals the reconfiguration of strategic ambitions, alliances, institutions, and governance norms and practices, suggesting a shift in international order. The period captures two of the administration’s most debated objectives: a reimagining of grand strategy that differs across regions and a new approach to nuclear disarmament that engages extant arsenals. The analysis spans rhetorical and institutional shifts, documents articulating national interests, and policy-related actions and communications, clarifying connections to broader objectives. The narrative further explores the translation of discourse into sanctions design and strategic signals directed at both rivals and partners, addressing de facto territorial quality, ambitions undertaken and contested, available governance configurations, and alternative local and external interests. Discourse, actions, and protocols reflect an emphasis on perilous territorial ambitions, constraints on resourcing, and inclination to “go elsewhere.” Overall, the rhetorical, policy, and governance dimensions signal a significant and perilous modification of international order.
Venezuela:
The best title we can thoughtfully give to Venezuela is; Resource Politics, Sanctions, and State Capacity under a Wild West Lens, where the Trump administration has pursued a foreign policy that resembles a Wild West mentality, influenced by a global decline in liberal order. “Wild West” signifies the transitional frame between a declining liberal order and an emerging, illiberal order. This lens encapsulates how U.S. late-imperial engagement operates when liberal order protection is primary rather than purposefully wrecking the regime. A “frontier” metaphor serves both figurative and literal purposes, relaxing definitions of territory to include resources and highlighting whether states are treated as intervening targets or cooperative partners. Geopolitically, the emphasis on resource extraction and wastage reflects U.S. resource dependence and engagement under conditions deemed critical for regime security, as in Venezuela. During the second keynote of imperial U.S. space, global governors prioritized the liberal organization of frontier resource extraction rather than abstaining from territorial claims. The entrance of consolidation variation is thereby shown to occur in and out of the metropolitan campaign and including material territory; it does expand upon the entrance already made to the colonial-variety material sovereignty abroad restrictively dealt with in social-scientific terms.
Venezuela thus emerges as a paradigmatic case through which to examine resource politics, sanctions, and state capacity. Its vast petroleum reserves, low extraction costs, long-standing ownership arrangements, and particular fiscal-policy configuration afford insights into post-liberal political order and the territorial implications of global governance (Kronick & Rodríguez, 2023). Oil remains key for both production and revenue; despite significant diversifications, large-scale extraction remains unduly high-cost and highly challenging to achieve without state intervention. Oil was from the mid-twentieth century classified as a customary frontier resource; current governance circles frame it as long since passed now considered a planetary frontier oil territory (IV—V). Oil accounts for fifty-seven percent of central-government revenues, declining yet still sizeable; in the absence of further state claims or rare openings onto fresh extraction frontiers, less-hydrological-extraction territorial surroundings loom inevitably as next-discourse expansion complements formally gained post-colonization.
Key sectors and ownership structures remain characteristic of Venezuela’s economy. These arrangements shape the political and economic balance to which policy remains chiefly constrained; (Plaza Azuaje, 2018). The hydraulic-hydrological-availability stage surrounding oil thus qualifies as essential yet literally mid-century; neither the commencement nor the conclusion of the relevant era for the material-hydrographic-framework theory (Hoffmann & Liu, 2023). The original-hydro-materiality-institution-variable hydro’s awareness remains accordingly unregulated into the present order of water-hydric still matters as yet degree matures alongside the monsoon-like time the latter too continues tributary of surrounding sector equally stays un-masterly therefore forth canal-opening category highly scrutinized. A symmetrical challenge yet proper perspective thus marks oil policy operates precisely need to sustain the discourse at hand there precisely period the analysis remaining advance, oil availability appears latterly crucial yet superficially when cover view properly none every enhance interplay water-lateral-system thus sizeable consideration large formal conversation-services term country precede actual direct. Hence, data colony-vowel-equivalent circumstances accommodate accordingly. Wherever extensive submit systematic stigma-prosperity precise these state-centric presence-level deliberation global discharge outside establishes principally Fellowship institution wherein became accordingly competence hence implications alongside distant rather hydric polity plainly share these exceedingly globular-maintenance peer moderate policy underlining alone more probing ese nevertheless sizable ownership intervene exogenous matter more rigid comprehensive bitter-colonial commodity-free explicitly four widespread resolution.
Greenland:
Indeed, Greenland can best be described as; Strategic Ambition, Resource Governance, and Territorial Temporalities. The Arctic holds potential as a site of significant hydrocarbon deposits, posing questions of ownership and governance both nationally and internationally (BRAŃKA, 2018). Greenland seeks to secure its strategic autonomy and limit external influence over its resources. Policy discourse oscillates between resource extraction and environmental protection, framing external attention as either an opportunity or a threat (Brøsted & Christian Gulløv, 1977). Thus, Arctic policy reflects an interplay of strategic ambition, governance challenges, and external interests.
In the contemporary Arctic, an estimated 13% of undiscovered oil and 30% of undiscovered gas are believed to be contained within High North formations, underpinning foundational claims of sovereignty and national identity. Greenland’s Self-Government Act of 2009 established a formal political and bureaucratic apparatus for administering the territory’s mineral-rich resources while simultaneously signaling to the world a desire for national engagement. Acknowledging the controversy surrounding climate change and oil-related dialogues, Denmark continues to support Greenland’s autonomy, offering long-term associated independence reinforced by the 1985 mineral-investment act’s direct rights. External actors; such as Russia, China, and the United States, are regarded as harbingers of both opportunity and threat, prompting arguments for orderly contemporary development alongside requests for capacity-building assistance.
Comparative Assessment:
Any acceptable assessment must include these concepts; Frontier Logic, Sovereignty, and External Intervention, as identifiers of our attempt to properly analyzing Trump’s policies. The Wild West metaphor frames the Trump-era international order as a departure from the post-Cold War liberal hegemony based on a unified but differentiated liberal order and the pulsating global governance discourse designed to stabilize it (Guida, 2018). Emerging, sovereign, yet fragile territories, such as contemporary Venezuela and Greenland, exemplify frontier logic while reinforcing the importance of state capacity and offering insights into U.S.-backed, co-opted, or turned quasi-frontier places like Cuba, Haiti, and Bolivia (Guida, 2018). The exploration of these cases underscores the need to articulate on-the-ground governance problems, further investigate territorial jurisdiction, and consider other emerging territories in line with projections of world-system collapse.
The Trump administration has deliberately framed Venezuela as a diplomatic laboratory for restoring territoriality within the new post-global order. Expansive resource wealth and intense external coercion, including a U.S.-led financial sanctions regime, render the country a paradigmatic example of the resource curse adjusted to frontier-logical dynamics. The diverse ownership arrangements across its major resources; oil, gold, diamonds, and coltan, deepen the constriction of governance options and favor the configuration of de facto extra-territoriality (Kirsch, 2019). Greenland is framed as the new geopolitically parturition, given its extensive mineral reserves, expansive maritime claims, and strategic bordering of Russia and China. So far deprived of external military pressures and only modest financial sanctions, the territory exhibits a relatively high degree of internal autonomy, yet a substantial knowledge gap hinders recognition of proper governance arrangements and shapes Greenland as an unrecognized quasi-frontier region.
From the perspective of frontier logic, several intriguing questions emerge regarding both Venezuela and Greenland. What specific patterns of external intervention can be identified, ranging from the most extensive and far-reaching to those that are barely perceptible, in connection with their ongoing and still-inconclusive processes of territorial remapping? Furthermore, where do these two nations stand on the spectrum of state legitimacy, particularly across the complex frontiers of cooperation and coercion? Understanding these dynamics is crucial for grasping the intricate relationships and the varying degrees of influence experienced by Venezuela and Greenland in the context of international politics and territorial disputes.
Venezuela and Greenland both serve as prominent examples that graphically illustrate various aspects of frontier logic, which have increasingly come to the forefront since the year 2016. The reconstruction of U.S.–Latin American relations in the aftermath of the Cold War uniquely positioned countries that impose sanctions at the far end of the coercion/cooperation continuum. In this context, widespread scholarship extensively designates Venezuela as a quintessential counter-example of the so-called Washington Consensus, highlighting its divergence from established norms. The stark absence of parallel regional frameworks specifically governing Arctic resource extraction and infrastructural development effectively renders Greenland relatively insulated from the broader coercion/cooperation spectrum, creating a distinctive dynamic in its international relations and developmental strategies. This divergence accentuates the complexities inherent in navigating contemporary geopolitical landscapes.
Implications for International Law and Global Governance:
Frontier logic draws momentum from spaces, territorialities, and modes of governance associated with the Wild West (P. Nevitt & V. Percival, 2018). In political geography, a frontier is a zone between distinct territorial state systems or governance orders where effective government is absent and competition over resources occurs with few external restraints. Frontier territories tend to become sites of multi-layered governance because off-state or para-state authorities attempt to fill the governance and security void. During periods of geopolitical rivalry, competition forms around these external dependencies and complementary resource pools; state competition operates at a wider range of territorial and electoral boundaries.
Contemporary systems of international law significantly restrict the scope that currently exists for transparent governance at frontiers under the established norms of territoriality and sovereignty. This limitation is primarily due to the way these legal frameworks define the reach of state sovereignty, outline the appropriate grounds for interference, and determine the legitimacy of the various means employed by sovereign powers to address governance or territorial threats. Importantly, because these dependencies related to territory and governance extend well beyond the boundaries and borders of recognized foreign voters or citizens, the frontier metaphor continues to be relevant. This remains true even if the means and methods of exercising control and authority differ from traditional demonstrations of frontier governance, such as those observed during periods of exploration or prospection throughout history. Indeed, the nuances of modern governance at these frontiers may reflect a shift in tactics, but ultimately, they continue to echo the fundamental principles that govern interactions between states.
Policy Implications and Future Trajectories:
Translating the analysis of Trump-era resource politics under a Wild West metaphor into actionable considerations for a new administration, international organizations, and non-state actors presents an urgent challenge. Much like the political opening that stimulated speculation and exceeded domestic capacities during the late nineteenth century, a progressive search over the next four years for the elements of a fresh governance framework; appropriate to a different historical phase and its desired aspirations, could readily extend the viability of a highly detrimental, resource-driven, disorderly extraction-and-acquisition regime. Venezuelan tensions, Arctic ambitions, and likely Russian-Chilean dealings all illustrate how an early stop to Wild West practices could assist in deterring destabilizing zones or behavior elsewhere. To this end, long-standing practices in conflict-prone environments and recent experience under changing conditions can yield important insights into the formulation of guidelines to steer resource governance.
Sustaining long-held expectations of pursuing multilateral equilibrium with established systems and norms significantly complicates the response to frontier-driven disorder. The era of clear transnational progress traversing multiple fronts, underpinned by a defensive but assertive liberal order, no longer exists. A metropolitan-kin-based interventionist claim on or near the predominant global center; advanced by strident anti-globalization proclamations and widely echoed from both the center and periphery, dominated the mandate. Therein, the unconstrained resolution of central metropolitan and peripheral development combined with the politically attractive surge toward emerging second-front regime-attention configurations had a major, explicit influence on world practice. A dual project explicating organized anti-democratic 4th-wave shifts and more broadly yet progressively organized-absence 3rd-front claims significantly shaped and, in positive terms substantially advanced, the appropriateness, interest-advantage, and dynamics of seeking far-reaching resource-extraction relaxation towards the external resource-governance margins (Guida, 2018).
Conclusion:
The careful examination of the distinct cases of Venezuela and Greenland serves to illuminate and underscore the Wild West metaphor as a particularly apt characterization of the emergent international order during the Trump era. The vividly emblematic rhetoric and the associated policies delineate a conscious and deliberate turn toward a “free-for-all” approach to the dynamics of interstate relations, a shift that has been spurred by a growing perception of anarchy within the broader international system. As a consequence of this evolving perspective, frontiers have once again returned to center-stage on the geopolitical agenda. This re-emergence not only informs the two countries that have been singled out for analysis, but it also reveals an agenda characterized by a greater strategic ambition that extends to the Arctic regions more broadly, highlighting the complexities and multifaceted nature of contemporary geopolitics.
Another four years of Donald Trump serving as president could have significantly sharpened these already complex dynamics even further, introducing a host of new challenges and potential opportunities across various sectors of society that could have long-lasting implications. However, the unexpectedly widespread popular resistance that emerged against his potential second term effectively seemed to limit their advance and mitigate potential excesses that might have arisen. This resistance showcased the remarkable ability of different groups to mobilize and come together in unified opposition. The implications of Trump’s distinct leadership style appeared to provoke a notable reaction from various segments of the population. Some individuals wholeheartedly embraced his controversial approach while others pushed back vigorously with strong voices, raising serious concerns about the health of democracy and the rule of law in the nation. Such a polarized response reflected deeper societal divides and the urgent need for dialogue and understanding among the various factions of the populace. (Kirsch, 2019)
A broad and highly diverse array of political, legal, and administrative measures can still be strategically formulated and effectively implemented to significantly bolster the foundational principles that are associated with frontier logic in the ongoing and continuous calculations of various geopolitical factors, particularly even when a new administration takes over the reins of power and responsibility. The Wild West framing also emphasizes the existence of a multitude of potential pathways for various and innovative policy responses that can adeptly understand, adapt to, and meticulously address the distinctive challenges that frontier situations typically entail in a rapidly changing context. This perspective ardently advocates for resilience, flexibility, and adaptability, particularly amidst an increasingly hostile and tumultuous environment that exhibits growing challenges toward multilateralism. It underscores the crucial and pressing need for innovative, creative, and forward-thinking strategies to successfully navigate through and manage the numerous complexities, uncertainties, and intricate nuances that arise within this ever-evolving, dynamic, and multifaceted landscape of global interactions and governance.
