Editor's note: Huang Jiyuan is an opinion editor with CGTN Digital. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Once a real estate man, always a real estate man, right? Only, Donald Trump has come a long way from being the head of a real estate company. As the president of the United States, it is clear that he is no longer satisfied with buying beach resorts. Now, he wants to sign his name to a whole autonomous region.

Perhaps by now, the tweets about his cancellation of trips to Denmark because of Denmark's Prime Minister's refusal to sell Greenland to him are everywhere. And, as expected, it was met with ridicule. The whole episode is, in fact, as laughable as it is absurd. And indeed, it is. Tweeting about buying a whole country out of the blue and refusing to meet with the leader of Denmark because the deal was turned down is hilarious.

However, the notion of purchasing territory is not foreign to the president of the United States. In fact, it would be credible to say that the United States is quite experienced with buying other people's lands. After all, within three quarters of a century in the 1800s, the United States bought the territory of Louisiana from France and Alaska from the Russian Empire. So, what has made President Trump's attempt so spectacularly laughable?

There is a Chinese expression: "天时、地利、人和." The rough translation of this expression is that, to accomplish anything great, it needs the right person to be at the right place at the right time. For Trump, none of the three conditions fit.

For starters, he is certainly not making this proposition under the right time. When Napoleon sold Louisiana and Tsar Alexander II sold Alaska, both of them were under pressure to make the sale. Napoleon, at the time, failed to suppress the revolt in France's Caribbean colonies. The disarray in the Caribbean made Louisiana's port cities of little value to the distant Paris. And with a war with the British Empire on the horizon, Napoleon was eager to exchange the territory for cash.

A similar scenario played out with Alaska. The region was located across from Bering Strait, far away from Russia's European center. It is scarcely populated, and difficult to defend with the bulk of Russian military forces thousands of miles away. Holding onto this land was costly and provided Moscow with little revenue return. Therefore, Tsar Alexander II, like Napoleon, was also looking to takes his hands off of the territory.

Both were more than willing to sell. This made the United States's negotiation and purchase process much easier. Greenland today doesn't live under the similar climate. It is neither a distant colony on the other side of the ocean nor a part of an empire that few inhabited. It is a region under Denmark that has gained its autonomous status by way of referendum, which resulted in 75 percent of voters approving the region's autonomy. To buy the region is to use money in exchange for the 75 percent of voters' independence and pride. The proposition is sure to be a non-starter with them.

Secondly, the place isn't right. Greenland is rich with natural resources under its ice sheet and in the ocean. And they are coveted by countries around the world. Buying the territory would mean being granted free access to these resources. This is certainly not going to sit well with Greenlandic people, the people of Denmark, and the Europeans as a whole.

And the location is just too strategic. Its direct access to the Arctic is a choke point for future maritime trade and military projection. As Zhao Yuanzhen wrote in her piece "Could Trump be the highest bidder in the Arctic?," Russia and China are working together to take advantage of the Arctic region. With Alaska already in hand, giving the U.S. further free access to the North Pole would certainly disrupt the balance of power in the region. A whiff of a serious negotiation on this subject could prompt other Arctic powers to act. The region is just too geopolitically sensitive to be treated like just a "large real estate deal" described by Trump.

Lastly, Trump is not the right person to make such a proposition. He has got a reputation of making gaffes, exaggeration, and impulsive rhetoric that he would deny later. Is he serious about the deal? Well, no one really knows, except for himself. As president of the United States, every word could contain a hidden message. However, anyone who's serious about making such a momentous action would probably not incline to post pictures with his own hotel photoshopped onto Greenlandic grounds, or to throw a tantrum because his counterpart said no.

In the end, the world is both amused and confused. No one, not even his staff, could be completely sure of whether this is a serious foreign policy matter, or just another tweet in his long chain of random daily Twitter outburst that's to be discarded later.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)