It looks like Trump has chickened out again after Greenland U-turn. And I think I know why…

Well, Donald, what changed your mind? During an unusually repetitive and soporific bragathon at the Davos meeting, even by his standards, the president of the United States at least gave us one big news story about his obsession with annexing Greenland: “I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force.”

Then, hours later, we had another one. The Donald rowed back on his latest tariff threats altogether after reaching the “framework of a future deal” over Greenland, just hours after giving that fiery speech.

Sighs of relief could be heard from the Arctic Circle to the conference centre.

Media savvy as he undoubtedly is, Trump even made a little quip about confounding expectations, just to underline the climbdown. He made no mention of threatening punitive tariffs in order to get his way – theoretically they’re due to start on 1 February – and has confined his present demands to “immediate negotiations”, albeit restating his ultimate goal of “acquisition” of this “piece of ice”.

It is another case of “Taco” (Trump always chickens out), and it’s not difficult to discern why. “Taco”, you may recall, was a term invented by some witty operator in the financial markets after Trump unleashed chaos last year on 2 April. That was the day Trump announced his illogical “reciprocal tariff” schedules on the rest of the world.

It was, Trump said, “Independence Day”. That was ironic because the powerful reaction of major trading partners, such as China, and the bond and equity markets, merely proved just how dependent the US is on foreign capital to keep it going.

Well, when US markets reopened after Martin Luther King Jr Day on Monday, they fell by about 2 per cent straight away – the worst day since October, and a clear rebuke to Trump’s military and economic threats to Nato allies. It was a clear warning, and one that Trump could understand, couldn’t argue with, and couldn’t resort to bullying tactics to defeat. Nor was this the inky factor at work.

Trump must feel the strength of his tariff weapon wilting in his hand as the Supreme Court judgment on them approaches. The expert gossip – there is such a thing – predicts that at least some of those slapped on imports last year will be struck down as unlawful, and Trump will have to comply, though he pleads it will cause chaos.

That, the justices needn’t point out, will be entirely his own fault for acting unconstitutionally. So right now his threats of, say, 200 per cent import taxes on French wines no longer carry quite the same terror for Emmanuel Macron and the vineyards of France.

Allied to that is growing resistance in the other supposed pillar of the American government, Congress. Again, the rumours have been strong that otherwise loyal Republican senators were prepared to impeach Trump if he invaded Greenland and thus collapsed Nato. Some even spoke out against him – a clear danger signal in such a cowed party.

The senators’ newfound resolve can only have been strengthened by the way other Nato allies have acted during the Greenland crisis. On the one hand, Denmark and others have stressed that the existing 1951 treaty allows America to station as many troops, missiles and other kit on Greenland as it likes – which would include the “Golden Dome” systems.

The Nordic countries and Canada committed to strengthening defences in the high north. Everyone agreed that Russia and China are threats. The attitude was positive – but with an edge. This time, the language directed at Trump was more assertive, and they were threatening back, including with what Macron called the EU “bazooka” – crippling retaliation on America, up to, and including, selling off large quantities of US government debt.

Even Keir Starmer told parliament that Trump was trying to pressure him, but “I will not yield”. Trump really wasn’t expecting such a pushback.

Nor, according to the polls, was the American public keen on the idea. Had Trump somehow managed to annex Greenland this week, it would probably have sunk his ratings even lower. Greenland is irrelevant to the affordability crisis, and Trump knows it.

It’s all about his “legacy”. Perhaps some of the generals tasked with planning an invasion also had their doubts about the legality of the operation, and thus breaking their oaths to the constitution (a safeguard still in place; Trump has yet to try to exact a pledge of personal allegiance to him).

So the crisis has melted away rather like the ice cap in summer, and Greenland will no doubt recede as an issue as the mid-term elections approach. A trade war, a small real war in Greenland and a cold war with US allies would make America less secure and make Americans poorer. That is no way to win seats in the House and the Senate. In the end, it’s the domestic political map that counts.