WORLD ROUNDUPWhy Does Greenland Matter, Anyway? | A Failed Chinese Invasion of Taiwan Would Be Disastrous for Xi Jinping | After Yemen Rift, Saudi Arabia Aims to Oust UAE from Wider Region, and more

What Spheres of Influence Are—and Aren’t  (Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy)
There’s lots of talk about “spheres of influence” these days, largely in response to the latest U.S. National Security Strategy, the Trump regime’s recent actions in Venezuela, and its renewed efforts to take over Greenland. The idea that great powers should exercise unchallenged sway in their own “neighborhoods” is also consistent with U.S. President Donald Trump’s belief that strong leaders of strong countries should run the world and cut deals with each other, without worrying about international law, universal moral principles, or other idealistic notions.
Unfortunately, both those who embrace spheres of influence and those who oppose them may not fully grasp their place in world politics. In the real world, they are neither an outmoded practice that can be eliminated nor an effective way to minimize great-power competition. On the contrary, spheres of influence are both an inevitable result of international anarchy and an imperfect solution to the competitive incentives that anarchy creates.

This situation also reminds us that spheres of influence work best when they are barely visible, the dominant power doesn’t need to do much to keep its neighbors in line, and when it can portray its role as essentially benevolent. Among other things, that is why the Trump administration’s aggressive boasts about imposing its will on “our” hemisphere, while openly declaring the desire to control resources and/or territory that belongs to others, is diplomatic malpractice that will foster greater resentment within the hemisphere and give great-power rivals ample ammunition for their efforts to portray the United States as a dangerous rogue.

The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ Is a Roosevelt Redux  (Tom Long and  Carsten-Andreas Schulz, Foreign Policy)
Then as now, big stick diplomacy will lead to costly cycles of intervention and retrenchment.

With Threats to Greenland, Trump Sets America on the Road to Conquest  (Peter Baker, New York Times)
After a century of defending other countries against foreign aggression, the United States is now positioned as an imperial power trying to seize another nation’s land.

On Greenland, Europe Must Tell Donald Trump That Enough Is Enough  (Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Economist)
But it must offer an off-ramp that includes a deal over resources.

MI5 Says Eliminating Every Risk of Chinese Mega-Embassy “Unrealistic”  (Oliver Wright and Ben Clatworthy, The Times)
Ministers have ruled that the diplomatic mission next to the Tower of London should go ahead in spite of widespread concerns.

After Yemen Rift, Saudi Arabia Aims to Oust UAE from Wider Region  (Loveday Morris, Katharine Houreld and Claire Parker, Washington Post)
Saudi Arabia, alarmed by what it sees as aggressive moves by its onetime ally, is working to counter the influence the UAE has built around the Red Sea.

A Failed Chinese Invasion of Taiwan Would Be Disastrous for Xi Jinping  (Bonnie S. Glaser and Zack Cooper, Foreign Policy)
Beijing’s saber-rattling conceals the real possibility of a loss.

Why Does Greenland Matter, Anyway?  (Harrison Kass, National Interest)
Donald Trump appears willing to destroy NATO over a frozen island in the Arctic. Why?