When US President Donald Trump put Greenland back at the center of international debate, many reacted with surprise and even humor. The idea of “buying” or strengthening influence over an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark seemed out of place in time — almost anachronistic.
But international politics is rarely just symbolic. Greenland has real strategic importance. Its location in the Arctic allows it to control emerging maritime routes, guarantees surveillance over the North Atlantic and places the territory in the heart of a region where the presence of Russia and China is intensifying. Iceland, Canada and Denmark itself are just parts of a larger map of strategic interests. For Washington, therefore, the topic is not unreasonable: it is about anticipating future geopolitical scenarios.
However, some analysts raise a more intriguing hypothesis: could the media focus on Greenland have also served to divert attention from other dossiers sensitive, like the situation in Venezuela? There is no formal proof that this was the case, but modern politics increasingly depends on managing agendas and controlling the public narrative.
The concept is not new. Political science talks about “agenda setting”: whoever defines the central themes automatically influences the way citizens perceive the government’s problems and priorities. By introducing an unexpected, disruptive or visually appealing topic, a leader can shift the media debate, even if he does not abandon other topics.
In the case of Greenland, the effect was immediate: the media focused on the Arctic, the role of NATO and the European Union, and Denmark’s reaction. Other issues, including complex decisions on sanctions, support for opponents or diplomatic negotiations in Venezuela, took a back seat.
It is important to emphasize that this is not a conspiracy, but a strategic reading of media policy. Contemporary leaders quickly learn that the public narrative is as important as the political decision.
This is not a practice exclusive to Donald Trump. Throughout history, presidents and prime ministers have resorted to unexpected themes to mobilize public opinion or reposition priorities. From the media crises used during the Cold War, to the politics of communicating economic crises in the 21st century, the pattern is similar: creating or emphasizing a topic that captures attention, while other complex topics get limited time or visibility.
Trump, in turn, has made this strategy almost a personal brand. Audacious, unexpected and sometimes provocative statements are used to dominate news cycles and force opponents and allies to react on the terrain defined by him. In terms of analysis, it is not difficult to imagine that Greenland played this role.
For the European Union, and by extension for Portugal, this episode brings important lessons. In a world increasingly saturated with information and competing narratives, foreign policy is not only defined by strategic terrain but also by the ability to manage public attention. Each topic, no matter how peripheral it may seem, can affect decisions, alliances and perceptions.
The situation also demonstrates a structural point: Europe continues to depend on the strategic communication capacity of other actors, namely the United States. At the same time, it shows the importance of developing our own rapid response mechanisms, risk analysis and diplomatic coordination, so as not to react solely to third party agendas.
The big lesson is not to say with certainty whether or not there was a deliberate intention to divert attention from Venezuela. It is realizing that, in the 21st century, the themes that dominate communication shape political decisions as much as geopolitical maps. What is placed at the center of the debate is not always the most important; Often, it is just the most effective way to reorganize perceptions and priorities.
For Portugal, the message is twofold: understanding global politics requires reading not only what is in focus, but also what moves into the shadows. And accepting that, increasingly, governing involves managing not only power, but the attention it generates.
In the end, Greenland can be more than a strategic territory: it is also an example of how, today, international politics is carried out both through concrete action and through the ability to dominate narratives.
Leave a Reply