This newsletter was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Watching Donald Trump and his defence and national security team announcing the US raid on Caracas on Saturday, it was hard not to conclude that while the US president was clearly using a script, there were points at which he seemed to be extemporising. At times he appeared as if he may be inventing US foreign policy as he went along, much to the visible discomfort of his secretary of state, Marco Rubio.

It must be challenging presenting a coherent message about American intentions in the region when the justification for the raid shifts randomly from a law enforcement operation to apprehend a “narco-terrorist”, to regime change to replace an illegitimate leader, to a bid to take control of the world’s largest oil reserves.

All of these have been canvassed in the days since. And, five days after the raid, it’s still not 100% clear what the US plans to do. But even so, it felt like a fairly important inflection point in global geopolitics: the point at which the US president and his senior advisers said out loud – and with particular emphasis – that the Trump administration will do whatever it likes, regardless of what anyone might think.

As the US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, told the assembled reporters and TV audiences around the world: “America can project our will anywhere, anytime.” He added: “This is America first. This is peace through strength. Welcome to 2026.”

Rubio, meanwhile, made sure everyone would be clear that this administration is serious: “I hope what people now understand is that we have a president [who] when he tells you that he’s going to do something, when he tells you he’s going to address a problem, he means it. He actions it.”

So what are we to make of Trump’s repeated assertions that the US plans to take control of Greenland, by fair means or foul? Denmark, of which Greenland is a part, is certainly taking the prospect seriously.

The country’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warned this week that an aggressive attack on a Nato member by another Nato member would spell an end to the alliance. And on the face of it you’d have to think she’s right: the alliance was set up in 1949 to ensure peace in Europe. Its key clause, article 5, demands that an attack on one member state is considered an attack on the alliance as a whole.

But David Dunn, Mark Webber and Stefan Wolff, international security experts at the University of Birmingham, believe there is

© The Conversation