World leaders in government, business, academics and technology all gathered in Switzerland in ‘A Spirit of Dialogue’ for the 56th World Economic Forum (WEF). International think tank in Switzerland invites the Who’s Who of global leadership and innovation to the stage, after which they gather on the Promenade in Davos at private dinners and A-List networking parties. Like Fashion Week, albeit with politicians lording their ideas, ethos, and agendas over the world economy. "If your not at the table you're on the menu."

Moreover, the week marked the first 365 days of Trump 2.0 testing if not the limits of executive power its standards, practices, policies, procedures and principles. Punishing tariffs (on friends and foes alike); weaponizing the Justice Department against perceived enemies; challenging the Federal Reserve’s independence; freezing funds and imposing fines on universities; deploying the National Guard, Border Patrol and ICE on US cities; even plucking a dictator from his palace and extraditing him to the United States to stand trial. As Zelenskyy asked Europe at the WEF: “Why does America seize Venezuelan tankers, but allow Russia's to move freely?” The Bard said it best: “If money go before, all ways do lie open.”

Mark Rutte — Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — was busy massaging in the days and weeks preceding the conference Trump's latest fixation on acquiring, annexing, even militarily invading what he calls “a big sheet of ice” in Greenland. Citing national security concerns in the Arctic, Trump threatened any NATO ally with tariffs who opposed the idea.

The Allies react. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney sounds off at the WEF, “The world order is at a rupture point due to the United States longstanding vise-grip on the world economy, and its swiftly expanding authoritarian nature under President Donald Trump.” German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier spells out the collateral damage:

The U.S. is ending world order as it’s known, and instead turning the world into a den of robbers: where the most unscrupulous take whatever they want, and middle countries are treated as the property of a few great powers.

Europe is increasingly viewed as a Middle Power, or a Regional Power, rather than a singular superpower. It poses as an economic bloc that often, though not always, aligns with the U.S., and while the EU has the potential for superpower-level influence, its internal fragmentation often limits its influence. Enter Rutte.

Back at the WEF, Rutte’s sit down with Trump focused on Trump's own talking point—Arctic security. The Arctic North faces escalating security challenges driven by climate change, geopolitical competition, and increased economic activity. Key threats include Russian militarization (nuclear and conventional); Chinese and Russian earth mineral exploitation; access to critical infrastructure like undersea communication cables. As the ice melts, Greenland's proximity to space, satellites and shipping routes has emerged as a rather hot commodity.

Trump, however, emerged from the WEF walking back his proclamations to publicly announce the “framework of a future deal” over Greenland and the wider Arctic. Furthermore, Trump withdrew his threats of tariffs on European allies and explicitly stated he would not use military force, either. Why, exactly?

NATO — an intergovernmental military alliance between 32 member states — has served as the de facto Transatlantic Alliance since 1949, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any outside party. Rutte not only flipped Trump's claim on Greenland — something the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland itself have both declared was a non-starter — but in effect used his proverbial middle finger to do so. NATO spokespeople confirmed that Rutte offered no compromise on Greenland’s sovereignty during his talks with Trump.

In public, Rutte waxed lyrical about Trump and the importance of working together, which enabled Trump to save face whilst backing off his confrontational claim on the island. Trump even praised Rutte in return, taking the off-ramp to conciliation.

What’s as important is what their discussions didn’t involve: 1) Rutte didn’t negotiate any transfer of Greenland’s sovereignty or ownership on Denmark’s behalf. (Official NATO statements emphasize that sovereignty was not even part of the discussion), and 2) The ultimate outcome or detailed terms of any Arctic security framework involves at present Denmark, Greenland, and the U.S. Just like always.

In 1916, the United States recognized Danish sovereignty over all Greenland. In 1946, the US creeped an offer to purchase Greenland for $100 million—DENIED! In 1951, a US conjured up a defense agreement with Denmark which produced dozens of long-term, rent-free, contract-service bases. Today, there is only one (Pituffik Space Base) and Trump wants more! Sovereignty at present remains with Denmark/Greenland, and Denmark/Greenland are protected by NATO.

An "Imperial Presidency" describes a U.S. presidency where the executive branch accumulates excessive power, often exceeding constitutional limits, particularly in foreign policy and national security, and acting unilaterally like a monarch. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in the 1970s coined the phrase due to presidents like Nixon and Truman expanding executive authority during crises. The Imperial Presidency is described as an executive bypassing an indolent Congress with executive orders and agreements; claiming inherent powers (Unitary Executive Theory); otherwise obstructing three branches designed to separate the government's power; and in consequence creating a pathway to tyranny.

However, Rutte single-handedly steering the conversation in Davos away from aggressive, authoritarian demands could signal the new era of soft power. Charm Offensive? Sure, Rutte’s cheap flattery and posts presaged the conference. Prior to Davos, Rutte laid the groundwork by unleashing friendly posts and texts praising Trump's work and expressing eagerness to cooperate, a tried and true political tactic called sycophancy.

Principled Negotiation? Rather than publicly confronting or directly opposing Trump's claim on Greenland, Rutte focused their discussions on Arctic security and collective NATO objectives — a topic of mutual interest. Strategic Ambiguity? Rutte keeps his discussions with others private, revealing little publicly about the private conversation. An ambiguity that masquerades as loyalty enables dialogue to continue.

Consensus? As a long-time political leader skilled in coalition politics, Rutte is practiced at finding compromise that preserves core red lines while keeping partners engaged. His ability to lead deeply divided parties in the Netherlands, and now navigate multiple NATO members’ interests, plays well internationally. Commonality? Rutte emphasizes shared security challenges and frames a narrative of cooperation rather than confrontation.

Finally, Rutte calms his European counterparts whilst queueing Trump to a diplomatic off-ramp. Instead of locking in a detailed agreement on the spot, Rutte suggested a vague “framework for a future deal.” Diplomats familiar with the contours of the negotiations confirm: “More Sovereign U.S. Bases, resources off limits to the Chinese and Russians, and a heightened NATO presence.” Which left the U.S. and Denmark's mutual defense pact overseen by NATO otherwise firmly in place.

In sum, Rutte masterfully deployed the Socratic Method — a dialogue-based teaching and philosophical approach named after Socrates — who refrained from making declarative statements in lieu of asking probative questions to stimulate critical thinking, challenge assumptions, identify flaws in reasoning, explore underlying beliefs, and ultimately walk his pupils toward deeper understanding and self-discovery.

The philosopher king in Plato’s “Republic” was a wise, virtuous, and non-ambitious leader who rules based on a fundamental knowledge of the “collective good." Which trumped, as then, the rise of authoritarian power.