Is Territorial Conquest the New Colonialism for International Power?

By Olamide Muiz Sanusi

The desire to seek and accumulate wealth is innate to human nature. For individuals, wealth represents the ability to satisfy personal needs and aspirations.

For nations, however, wealth extends beyond material resources; it includes the capacity to meet citizens’ needs and exert significant influence in international politics. The availability or scarcity of resources both human and capital within a country plays a critical role in shaping its foreign policy and approach to global affairs.

Historically, nations expanded their power through territorial conquest. However, in today’s interconnected world, economic cooperation, trade, and diplomacy have largely replaced the traditional practice of land acquisition as a means of exerting influence.

The world has become a “global village,” where international relations prioritize stability and mutual interests over direct annexation. Yet, recent global events suggest that territorial ambitions have not entirely disappeared.

From Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to China’s growing determination to assert control over Taiwan, and even Donald Trump’s repeated assertions about purchasing Greenland from Denmark, the idea of territorial acquisition is resurfacing in modern geopolitics.

Several factors contribute to this resurgence of territorial ambitions. Population growth and economic pressures are fueling competition for resources and strategic land. Nationalism is also experiencing a revival, with many governments using territorial claims to reinforce national identity and political legitimacy.

Explore latest Scholarships here (Local and International Fully Funded)

Perhaps most critically, climate change exacerbates tensions, as dwindling resources and environmental challenges push nations to secure land that promises sustainability and economic advantage.

The Resurgence of Territorial Ambitions: Key Factors

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has repeatedly expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark due to its strategic geopolitical significance. Although this ambition remained largely dormant for decades, it resurfaced publicly during Donald Trump’s first term.

His initial proposal to acquire the island was met with resistance and dismissed as unrealistic, yet the idea has regained traction following his reelection in 2024. Understanding Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland requires a deeper examination of both its strategic and economic significance.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous territory of Denmark located in the Arctic. Despite its vast landmass, it has a small population of approximately 56,000 people, primarily of Inuit descent. The island is rich in natural resources, including rare minerals and untapped oil reserves, making it a valuable geopolitical asset.

Its strategic location between North America and Europe has historically attracted the attention of global powers, particularly the United States, which views Greenland as a crucial component of Arctic security and military operations.

Trump’s interest in Greenland stems from its role as a buffer zone between the United States and its geopolitical adversaries. He has argued that acquiring the island is not merely an economic decision but a matter of national security, once stating that the purchase “has to do with the freedom of the world.” Beyond its military significance, Greenland is becoming increasingly attractive due to the effects of climate change.

As Arctic ice caps continue to melt, new shipping routes are opening, and previously inaccessible resources are becoming available. This transformation has turned the Arctic into a focal point for geopolitical competition, reinforcing the idea that territorial ambitions remain a defining feature of 21st-century global politics.

The great powers in international politics are already positioning themselves for the future, potentially leading to a new wave of territorial competition. Research conducted by scientists at Stanford University indicates that global warming has exacerbated economic inequality since the 1960s.

Explore latest Scholarships here (Local and International Fully Funded)

Rising temperatures, driven by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, have benefited cooler countries such as Sweden and Norway, while negatively impacting economic growth in warmer nations like India and Nigeria click here.

The reason is that productivity tends to improve in temperate climates and declines in excessively hot environments. High temperatures contribute to heat-related illnesses, water scarcity, increased energy costs, and reduced agricultural yields, all of which pose serious economic and social challenges.

Conversely, countries such as Russia and Canada, which have traditionally cold climates, are expected to experience economic gains as global warming makes more of their land arable for agriculture.

In contrast, regions in North Africa and parts of Asia will likely see increased emigration due to worsening living conditions. This emerging disparity underscores the reality that climate change will create both challenges and opportunities, reshaping global economic and geopolitical landscapes.

Faced with these inevitable shifts, major powers such as the United States and China—both heavily dependent on agricultural productivity—may seek new territories to supplement their resources and ensure food security.

This strategic imperative is a key factor behind the United States’ continued interest in Greenland, as securing access to its untapped natural wealth and emerging arable land could serve as a long-term safeguard against the adverse effects of climate change.

Beyond the climatic conditions driving territorial ambitions, the 21st century has witnessed a resurgence of nationalism as a major force shaping global geopolitics. A nation is not merely a physical entity; it is a sentiment—an identity forged by shared values, traditions, language, and historical experiences, often tied to a specific geographical region. This nationalist ideology has been instrumental in justifying territorial claims and expansionist policies by several world powers.

Explore latest Scholarships here (Local and International Fully Funded)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, has framed the invasion of Ukraine as an effort to restore the historical glory of the Soviet Union. His rhetoric appeals to nationalist sentiments, portraying Ukraine as an integral part of Russia’s historical and cultural sphere.

However, beyond ideological justifications, economic and strategic factors also play a crucial role. Ukraine is one of the world’s largest producers of wheat and possesses significant mineral resources, which would provide an economic boost to Russia while reinforcing its geopolitical influence in Eastern Europe.

Similarly, China’s interest in Taiwan extends beyond its historical claim that the island is a rightful part of its old empire. Taiwan is home to the world’s most advanced semiconductor industry, which is critical for global technological production.

Control over Taiwan would grant China a dominant position in the semiconductor supply chain, giving it leverage over the global economy. This combination of economic interest and nationalist sentiment fuels China’s increasingly assertive stance toward Taiwan.

The revival of nationalism is not confined to Russia and China; it is also evident in the United States. Upon his inauguration, Donald Trump made it clear that his administration would adopt an “America First” approach, prioritizing national interests over international cooperation.

A striking example of this nationalist shift is the renewed interest in the Panama Canal, a vital maritime passageway facilitating about 40% of U.S. container shipping. The canal serves as a shortcut between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic, significantly reducing maritime trade costs.

Trump has falsely claimed that the canal is being controlled by China and has suggested that the United States must reassert its influence over it for the sake of “economic security.” This reflects a broader trend in which economic nationalism is used to justify potential territorial or strategic takeovers.

International Response and Historical Context

While major powers justify their territorial ambitions based on national security and economic interests, these actions have significant global implications. The international community, led by organizations such as the United Nations and NATO, has responded with sanctions, diplomatic negotiations, and military deterrence.

However, history has shown that these measures are often insufficient to prevent territorial conflicts. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 drew economic sanctions, yet Russia remained undeterred, illustrating the limitations of diplomatic pressure.

Similarly, during the Cold War, the expansionist policies of the United States and the Soviet Union shaped global politics, leading to proxy wars and ideological conflicts. The resurgence of territorial ambitions today suggests a potential return to a multipolar world order, where competing powers seek to expand influence through both direct and indirect means. Understanding these historical parallels is crucial in analyzing the trajectory of modern geopolitics and the evolving strategies of global powers.

Future Scenarios: Will Territorial Conquest Define the 21st Century?

The resurgence of territorial ambitions in the 21st century could lead to a variety of long-term outcomes, ranging from increased geopolitical tensions to the restructuring of global alliances.

Historically, territorial expansion has often resulted in prolonged conflicts, economic realignments, and shifts in the balance of power. In today’s world, however, the consequences may be different due to globalization, nuclear deterrence, and the economic interdependence of nations.

One possible scenario is a new era of regional conflicts, where major powers continue to assert territorial claims without full-scale wars but through economic coercion, hybrid warfare, and strategic influence.

For example, China’s claim over Taiwan may not result in an outright invasion but rather a prolonged economic and military standoff, where China slowly strangles Taiwan’s autonomy through trade restrictions, diplomatic isolation, and cyber warfare.

This would mirror historical cases like the Soviet Union’s gradual control over Eastern Europe during the Cold War—not through outright conquest but through political and economic dominance.

Explore latest Scholarships here (Local and International Fully Funded)

Another potential outcome is the rise of proxy conflicts, where smaller nations become battlegrounds for larger powers. The U.S. and China, for instance, may not engage in direct war but could support opposing sides in territorial disputes, much like the Cold War era when the U.S. and the USSR backed opposing forces in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan.

The India-China border conflict in the Himalayas, for example, could escalate into a larger confrontation fueled by nationalist sentiments, military buildups, and alliances with external powers.

If the U.S. increases its support for India as a counterbalance to China, we could see a prolonged conflict similar to the Indo-Pakistani wars, except with more global ramifications.

A more extreme possibility is the fragmentation of existing states, where regions within powerful nations push for independence due to nationalist sentiments. This has historical precedent: the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was driven by economic decline, political mismanagement, and nationalist movements within its republics.

Today, similar fractures could emerge in places like China’s Xinjiang and Tibet, Spain’s Catalonia, or even Russia’s Siberian regions, where dissatisfaction with central governance could spark secessionist movements.

If economic downturns, ethnic tensions, or political instability increase, we could witness a wave of new microstates emerging from previously powerful nations.

While globalization has created a world where economic ties discourage direct military conflicts, nationalism has proven to be a powerful force that can override economic rationality.

History offers several lessons: in the early 20th century, economic interdependence among European nations led many to believe that a large-scale war was impossible—yet World War I still broke out, fueled by nationalist fervor and territorial ambitions.

Similarly, despite economic globalization in the 1930s, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan pursued aggressive expansionist policies, prioritizing nationalist ideology over economic stability.

In today’s world, nationalist movements are on the rise, and they often challenge globalization rather than support it. Brexit was driven by nationalist sentiment, emphasizing sovereignty over economic integration. Trump’s “America First” policies reflected a similar shift, prioritizing national interests over global cooperation.

In China, President Xi Jinping’s vision of the “Chinese Dream” encourages national pride and expansionist goals, such as reclaiming Taiwan and asserting dominance in the South China Sea.

This pattern suggests that, while globalization may limit full-scale wars, it won’t necessarily prevent territorial disputes—especially if nationalist governments are willing to endure economic costs to achieve their ideological goals.

Diplomacy may delay conflicts, but it does not eliminate them. The United Nations, NATO, and other international bodies were created to prevent wars, yet they have struggled to stop territorial aggressions. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 despite UN condemnation.

China has built artificial islands in the South China Sea, despite international legal rulings against it. This shows that diplomacy works only when all sides respect international law—which is not always the case when powerful nations prioritize nationalistic ambitions over global stability.

Conclusion: A World in Transition

The 21st century is witnessing a resurgence of territorial ambitions, but these ambitions are playing out in a world vastly different from previous centuries. Unlike past imperial conquests, modern territorial expansion is driven by economic interests, resource scarcity, and nationalism rather than outright colonization.

The long-term outcomes will depend on whether diplomacy and globalization can counterbalance these forces—or whether nationalist movements push nations toward a more fragmented and conflict-prone world.

Historically, territorial disputes have led to massive realignments—from the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) that shaped modern nation-states to the post-World War II reshuffling of global borders.

Today, we may be approaching another era of geopolitical transformation, where old alliances shift, new conflicts emerge, and the global balance of power changes once again.

Whether this leads to a new Cold War, an era of economic rivalries, or an entirely new geopolitical order remains to be seen—but one thing is certain: territorial ambitions are far from extinct.