The Billion-Dollar Island: Why Greenland Has Become the Most Coveted Territory on Earth

U.S., Denmark, and the Race for the Arctic: Greenland’s Strategic Role

Background: Trump’s Greenland Gambit and Its Fallout

In August 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump stunned the world by proposing that the United States purchase Greenland from Denmark – a proposal Denmark’s government flatly rejected as “absurd.” This unprecedented gambit injected sudden tension into U.S.-Denmark relations and thrust Greenland into the spotlight of Arctic geopolitics. Trump canceled a state visit to Copenhagen amid the dispute, but the episode had lasting effects. It signaled Washington’s heightened strategic interest in Greenland and spurred Denmark to reassert its sovereignty there. In the years since, Trump has reiterated his interest in acquiring Greenland on national security grounds, arguing that the island’s vast mineral wealth and strategic location make it vital to U.S. interests (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations) (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). These public comments have rippled through diplomatic and security circles, prompting debates about Arctic sovereignty, military posture, and great-power competition in the far north.

Greenland’s leaders and people were caught in the middle of this exchange. The island’s government firmly stated “Greenland is not for sale,” even as Trump’s overtures drew attention to Greenland’s importance and, ironically, energized its independence movement. U.S. officials shifted tactics by engaging Greenland directly – reopening a consulate in Nuuk and even offering economic aid. In 2020, the U.S. announced a $12.1 million aid package for Greenland aimed at fostering ties and expanding a U.S. presence, citing concerns over Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic (U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland to counter China, Russia in Arctic | Reuters) (U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland to counter China, Russia in Arctic | Reuters). Danish politicians were divided: some decried the U.S. aid as a provocative attempt to drive a wedge between Greenland and Denmark (U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland to counter China, Russia in Arctic | Reuters), while others welcomed American investment in Greenland’s development (U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland to counter China, Russia in Arctic | Reuters). The immediate diplomatic rift of 2019 gradually gave way to pragmatic cooperation, but Trump’s Greenland saga has undeniably reframed Arctic issues for all parties involved.

Greenland’s Strategic Importance for Arctic Dominance

Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, is the world’s largest island and occupies a critical position in the Arctic Circle. Its strategic value stems from a combination of geography, natural resources, and military utility:

• Geopolitical Location: Greenland sits between North America and Europe, flanking the Arctic Ocean and North Atlantic. It forms part of the vital “GIUK gap” (Greenland-Iceland-UK), a naval choke point for movement between the Arctic and Atlantic. Control of this area is crucial for NATO to monitor Russian naval activity and secure Atlantic sea lanes. As Trump bluntly put it, “We need Greenland for national security” (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). Full U.S. control over Greenland, he argued, could enhance American air and naval operations in the Arctic and North Atlantic (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). Even under Danish sovereignty, Greenland hosts Thule Air Base (Pituffik Space Base), America’s northernmost military installation, which provides early-warning radar for missiles and space surveillance (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense). This base underscores Greenland’s role as a forward U.S./NATO defense outpost guarding the approaches to North America and Europe.
• Natural Resources and Economic Potential: Beneath Greenland’s ice lie abundant mineral riches – including rare earth elements, uranium, zinc, iron ore, and potentially oil and gas. These resources are increasingly accessible as ice sheets retreat. Trump and U.S. strategists have eyed Greenland’s “considerable mineral wealth” as an asset for economic and strategic security (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). Rare earth minerals, in particular, are critical for high-tech and defense industries, and currently dominated by China’s supply chain. Gaining a secure source from Greenland would be a strategic boon for the West. Greenland’s fisheries are another economic lifeline (the island relies heavily on fishing exports), and new opportunities in tourism and infrastructure are emerging. However, exploiting these resources raises environmental and governance questions, especially given Greenland’s delicate Arctic ecosystem.
• New Arctic Sea Routes: Climate change is literally redrawing maps in the high north. Warming temperatures and receding sea ice are opening navigational routes like the Northwest Passage (through Canada’s Arctic) and the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s Siberian coast. Greenland sits astride some of these developing corridors. For example, a route over Canada and along Greenland’s coast could significantly shorten voyages between Asia, Europe, and North America. The melting Arctic ice promises new passages for trade, which is “reigniting competition” among powers for influence over these routes (Why does Donald Trump want Greenland so bad? What to know). Greenland’s harbors could someday serve as important waystations or naval bases along a trans-Arctic shipping lane. Both the U.S. and EU worry about freedom of navigation if adversaries try to control these passages. Russia’s dominance of the Northern Sea Route – which it claims as internal waters – could potentially disrupt commercial shipping and military transit, challenging the principle of open seas ( NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy | ASP American Security Project ). Thus, Greenland’s location near emerging sea lanes further elevates its strategic significance as the Arctic becomes more accessible.
• Military and Strategic Foothold: Control over Greenland offers a broad strategic footprint in the Arctic. During the Cold War, the U.S. maintained numerous facilities in Greenland (up to 17 installations with 10,000 personnel) to monitor Soviet activity (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters). Today, Greenland remains a key node in Arctic defense. The U.S. Pituffik/Thule base provides critical radar coverage for North America’s missile defense shield (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense), and its airfield can support antisubmarine patrol aircraft guarding the North Atlantic. If tensions in the Arctic escalate, Greenland could host expanded forces or serve as a staging ground for NATO operations. Conversely, in unfriendly hands, Greenland could severely complicate NATO’s strategic calculus. American defense planners view a strong foothold on Greenland as essential to project power and deter rivals in the Arctic region (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). This helps explain Washington’s extraordinary interest in the island. (Denmark Boosts Defence Spending Amid U.S. Pressure Over Greenland – Nordic Defence Review) A Danish Navy patrol vessel (HDMS Triton, F358) navigates near an iceberg off Greenland’s coast, exemplifying the heightened focus on Arctic defense. Greenland’s vast maritime zones and icy waters require regular patrols to assert sovereignty, conduct search-and-rescue, and monitor foreign activity. Both Denmark and the United States have ramped up military presence around Greenland to address growing geopolitical competition in the Arctic. As ice recedes and traffic increases, such patrols underscore the island’s strategic role in securing the High North. (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense) ( New DOD Strategy Calls for Enhancements, Engagements, Exercises in Arctic > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News )

In sum, Greenland’s unique blend of strategic location, resource potential, and military importance makes it a coveted asset in the Arctic chessboard. U.S. interest in buying Greenland, while unusual, spotlighted these factors. For Denmark, Greenland is a linchpin of its kingdom’s status and a responsibility it must manage amid big-power rivalry. And for other global players like Russia and China, Greenland represents both an opportunity (for influence or resources) and a barrier (to their Arctic ambitions) depending on who controls it. This sets the stage for a wider look at how the U.S., Denmark, Russia, and the EU each approach the Arctic and Greenland in the emerging era of Arctic geopolitics.

Competing Strategic Interests in the Arctic: U.S., Denmark, Russia, and the EU

The scramble for Arctic influence involves multiple stakeholders, each with distinct interests. The table below compares the strategic priorities of the United States, Denmark (via Greenland), Russia, and the European Union in the Arctic region:

Sources: U.S. Department of Defense Arctic Strategy ( New DOD Strategy Calls for Enhancements, Engagements, Exercises in Arctic > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News ) ( New DOD Strategy Calls for Enhancements, Engagements, Exercises in Arctic > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News ); Danish Defense Ministry statements (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense) (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense); Russian Foreign Ministry and strategy documents (Lavrov vows Russia to defend its Arctic interests | Reuters) (Lavrov vows Russia to defend its Arctic interests | Reuters); EU Arctic Policy (2021) and Strategic Compass (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel) (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel).

This comparison highlights that while all players share an interest in the Arctic’s opportunities, they diverge sharply in their security perceptions and methods. The United States and Denmark (as allies) are primarily concerned with checking Russia and China and maintaining the status quo of open access. Russia is focused on solidifying its Arctic dominance and pushing out NATO influence. The European Union seeks to balance security needs with environmental stewardship and the rule of law. These differing strategic interests set the context for how the Greenland issue reverberates through diplomatic and military channels.

Impact on U.S.-Denmark Relations

Trump’s bid for Greenland and the ensuing developments have tested the resilience of the U.S.-Denmark relationship. Traditionally, Denmark is a close NATO ally of the United States, and both countries have cooperated on Arctic security for decades. However, the Greenland episode introduced unprecedented friction:

• Diplomatic Strains: Denmark’s leaders were taken aback by Trump’s public offer and his cancellation of a Denmark visit in 2019. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s dismissal of the idea as “absurd” drew Trump’s ire, straining ties. Although relations normalized under subsequent U.S. leadership, Trump’s renewed Greenland rhetoric (as seen in campaign-style speeches) continues to put Copenhagen in an awkward position. Most recently, in early 2025, Trump (now seeking office again) and his team reignited pressure on Denmark over Greenland’s security. U.S. Vice President JD Vance (during a visit to Nuuk) bluntly accused Denmark of “not doing a good job” protecting Greenland and suggested the U.S. could do better (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters). Such remarks are highly unusual between NATO allies and were met with Danish indignation – Prime Minister Frederiksen called Vance’s comments “unfair” and Greenland’s own government expressed “deep unease” at the implication of a U.S. takeover (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters) (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters).
• Defense Cooperation and Tensions: Paradoxically, the flare-up over Greenland has spurred Denmark to increase its defense commitment in the Arctic, largely in line with U.S. wishes. Feeling the pressure to demonstrate sovereignty, Denmark announced a new Arctic defense agreement in collaboration with Greenland authorities. In January 2025, Copenhagen unveiled a 14.6 billion kroner (~$2.04 billion) plan to bolster Arctic and North Atlantic defense – including new naval patrol vessels, long-range surveillance drones, and enhanced satellite capabilities for Greenland’s surveillance (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense) (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense). The Danish Defense Minister stated that there are “serious security challenges” in the Arctic and vowed to “strengthen our presence in the region” (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense). This investment directly responds to U.S. concerns (and was explicitly linked to Trump’s pressure campaign) in order to “placate the U.S.” and deter any notion that Denmark is neglecting Greenland (Denmark boosts Arctic defence spending by $2.1 billion, responding …) (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense). While this has tightened defense ties – the U.S. is supporting Denmark with arms sales, such as advanced missiles for Danish F-35 jets (Denmark Boosts Defence Spending Amid U.S. Pressure Over Greenland – Nordic Defence Review) (Denmark Boosts Defence Spending Amid U.S. Pressure Over Greenland – Nordic Defence Review) – it also reveals a rift: the U.S. essentially had to shame an ally into action. Danish officials privately resent the implication that they might “lose” Greenland if they don’t militarize more. Nonetheless, going forward, U.S.-Danish cooperation in Greenland is likely to deepen: more joint exercises, US access to Greenlandic ports/airfields, and integration of Danish Arctic units with U.S. North American defense systems are on the horizon.
• Greenland’s Autonomy and the Alliance: A delicate aspect of U.S.-Denmark relations is how Greenland’s own aspirations are handled. Trump’s interest inadvertently boosted Greenlandic nationalism – reminders of being a “pawn” between superpowers fuel desires for greater autonomy (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations) (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). In 2021 and 2023, Greenland’s elections were won by parties advocating eventual independence from Denmark (albeit gradually) (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations) (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). Denmark has pledged it will respect Greenland’s choice should independence come via referendum. For the U.S., this raises a tricky question: Washington wants influence in Greenland, but preferably without rupturing its ties to Denmark and NATO. U.S. officials have thus tried to engage Greenland’s local government directly (opening a consulate, economic aid, high-profile visits) while still officially recognizing Danish sovereignty. The challenge is to avoid undermining Denmark’s position – something that Danish politicians have warned against. For example, Danish lawmakers criticized the U.S. aid package in 2020 as “creating division” between Greenland and Denmark (U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland to counter China, Russia in Arctic | Reuters). The balance that Denmark and the U.S. must strike is allowing Greenland enough agency and benefits to feel valued, while keeping it firmly anchored in the Western camp. Any U.S. moves perceived as heavy-handed (like Vance’s speech or Trump’s talk of “taking” Greenland) risk backlash that could weaken Danish domestic support for American involvement. Overall, while the alliance remains strong, the Greenland issue has introduced new sensitivities. Denmark is likely to be more vigilant and assertive about Greenland’s defense, and the U.S. will need to consult closely with Copenhagen (and Nuuk) on any Arctic plans to maintain trust.

Ramifications for U.S.-EU Relations

European leaders largely watched the Trump-Greenland saga with concern and some bemusement. The European Union as an institution has no claim in Greenland (in fact, Greenland exited the EU in 1985), but Denmark’s membership means the EU had a stake in backing its member state. The episode had a few implications for U.S.-EU relations:

• Solidarity with Denmark: European officials and NATO allies informally sided with Denmark’s refusal to sell part of its kingdom. There was a sense that transatlantic norms were being challenged by Trump’s proposal – if a U.S. president could openly contemplate buying (or possibly seizing) territory of an ally, what did that mean for sovereignty? The EU, which prizes rule of law, found the notion contrary to modern international principles. While there was no formal EU rebuke, the situation likely factored into European skepticism about Trump’s unconventional foreign policy. At the same time, Europe recognized the underlying strategic anxieties driving U.S. interest. EU policymakers acknowledged that Arctic security and resource issues were becoming more prominent, and that Europe needed to pay attention as well, if only to ensure Denmark was supported.
• EU Arctic Policy and U.S. Alignment: The Greenland controversy coincided with the EU updating its own Arctic policy. In October 2021, the European Commission released a communication calling for a “peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic,” explicitly mentioning the need for stability and cooperation (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel). The EU shares many of the U.S. concerns about the Arctic: the effects of climate change, new economic opportunities, and geopolitical competition. However, the EU’s emphasis is on multilateral governance and climate action rather than a military buildup. The U.S. and EU found common ground in condemning excessive militarization of the Arctic – for instance, both are wary of Russia’s moves – but there are slight nuances. The EU tends to stress environmental security (highlighting that no new oil/gas extraction should occur in the Arctic as part of fighting climate change), whereas the U.S. under Trump was more inclined to pursue drilling and mining opportunities. This difference did cause some tension. European officials were concerned by suggestions that the U.S. might rush into Greenland for mining or strategic exploitation without regard to environmental consequences. If the U.S. were to push Greenland to allow resource extraction that Denmark or the EU find unsustainable, that could create a rift. So far, that scenario hasn’t materialized, but it’s a point to watch.
• Transatlantic Cooperation vs. Competition in Greenland: On one hand, Greenland’s situation has led to greater U.S.-European (especially Danish) cooperation in Arctic security – which is positive for NATO unity. On the other hand, a subtle competition is at play: the EU has also stepped up outreach to Greenland, partly to ensure it isn’t exclusively oriented toward America. The EU provides development funds and has a partnership with Greenland on education and sustainable development. It wants to secure access to Greenland’s rare earths as well (in line with Europe’s strategy to diversify critical mineral sources). From Brussels’ perspective, it’s important that Greenland’s future isn’t decided over its head by Washington and Copenhagen alone. In 2022, Greenland opened a representation office in Brussels, reflecting the EU’s role in its affairs despite not being an EU member. Overall, the Greenland episode nudged the EU to be more assertive in Arctic affairs, to complement NATO’s military angle with economic and diplomatic tools. U.S.-EU relations have not been fundamentally damaged – indeed, under the Biden administration they improved, and Arctic issues became an area of consultation rather than conflict. But Europe will continue to insist on respect for Danish and Greenlandic autonomy in any U.S. plans, and it will push for environmental considerations that sometimes diverge from U.S. priorities (for example, Europe’s climate-driven stance versus any American inclination to exploit Arctic oil).
• NATO–EU Synergy: It’s worth noting that many EU countries are in NATO, and Finland’s and Sweden’s recent accession to NATO blurs the line between EU and NATO Arctic interests. The Greenland affair underscored that the transatlantic alliance needs a coherent Arctic strategy. EU and NATO members have begun to coordinate more closely on Arctic security (the EU’s 2024 “Strategic Compass” mentions Arctic tensions alongside climate issues (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel)). In summary, while Trump’s Greenland initiative was jarring, it ultimately reinforced to Europeans that U.S. engagement in the Arctic is a reality they must work with. It did not cause a transatlantic split, but rather led the EU to sharpen its own Arctic focus to ensure a balanced approach that includes European values and interests alongside American strategic objectives.

Strategic Consequences for NATO in the Arctic

NATO as an alliance has historically kept a low profile in the Arctic, leaving Arctic affairs mostly to individual member states. But the combination of Russia’s military resurgence in the High North and the political spotlight on Greenland is forcing NATO to pay greater attention to Arctic defense. Several strategic consequences and shifts are underway:

• NATO’s Northern Flank Reinforced: The security concerns raised by the Greenland episode tie into the broader northward shift of NATO’s posture. In the past few years, NATO’s footprint in the Arctic and sub-Arctic has expanded significantly. Finland and Sweden joining NATO (in 2023 and 2024 respectively) means that 7 of the 8 Arctic states are now NATO members, dramatically changing the calculus (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel). The alliance now essentially surrounds Russia in the European Arctic, from the North Atlantic (via the US, UK, Canada, Norway, Denmark) across to the Nordic and Barents region (via Norway, Finland, Sweden). This enlargement was driven by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, but it has clear Arctic implications: NATO airspace and territory now directly abut Russia’s Arctic coast in new ways. NATO is thus more invested than ever in Arctic stability, because any conflict with Russia could quickly extend to the Arctic domain. Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, is covered by NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense guarantee (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations) (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations). An attack on Greenland would be an attack on NATO. Hence, any threat of force regarding Greenland (even Trump’s hypothetical suggestion of “taking” it by force, which he floated then downplayed (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense)) is utterly incompatible with NATO’s framework. This was obvious, but it underscored the point that Greenland’s security is indivisible from NATO security.
• Arctic Defense Infrastructure and Exercises: NATO has begun to address its capability gap in the High North. Russia’s military build-up – reopening Soviet bases, deploying air defense systems, modernizing its Northern Fleet – far outpaces NATO’s infrastructure up north (Lavrov vows Russia to defend its Arctic interests | Reuters) ( NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy | ASP American Security Project ). Western analysts note that NATO would need at least 10 years to match Russia’s current Arctic infrastructure if it started now ( NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy | ASP American Security Project ). This shortfall has prompted new initiatives. NATO member Norway has been upgrading airfields and ports in the Norwegian Arctic; the U.S. is investing in new icebreakers and Arctic-capable ships; and Canada is bolstering its Arctic patrols. The alliance has also ramped up joint exercises in Arctic conditions. For example, large drills like Exercise Trident Juncture 2018 in Norway and Cold Response have practiced the defense of Norway’s far north. The U.S. has conducted freedom-of-navigation voyages near Russia’s Arctic waters and even sailed a carrier into the High North to demonstrate presence. As Lavrov complained, “NATO is intensifying exercises… in the Arctic” and Russia says it is fully prepared to respond (Lavrov vows Russia to defend its Arctic interests | Reuters). Greenland specifically could see more NATO activity: periodic visits of NATO naval vessels to Greenlandic ports, radar integration with NATO systems, and perhaps in the future, space surveillance assets benefiting NATO’s missile defense. In 2020, the U.S. established a new NATO Atlantic Command (JFC Norfolk) with an eye on securing the North Atlantic and Arctic sea lanes. All this amounts to NATO visibly treating the Arctic as an emerging front – a significant strategic shift from a decade ago, when the Arctic was seen as a zone of cooperation.
• Great Power Rivalry & NATO Unity: The developments around Greenland have been a microcosm of great-power rivalry creeping into NATO’s Arctic discourse. On one hand, NATO allies share the threat perception of Russia’s Arctic militarization and, to a lesser extent, China’s ambitions. Russia’s ability to “hold U.S. and allied territories at risk” from the Arctic with advanced missiles and air/naval forces is a serious concern ( New DOD Strategy Calls for Enhancements, Engagements, Exercises in Arctic > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News ). Moscow’s moves – like simulated bomber flights toward Norwegian airspace or jamming GPS in northern Finland – have kept NATO on alert. China, while not an Arctic state, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and pursued partnerships with Russia and investments in Arctic nations, raising eyebrows in NATO. The alliance has started discussing China’s presence in the Arctic as part of its strategic concept (recognizing China as a challenge). On the other hand, NATO’s unity could be tested if allies’ interests diverge. The Greenland issue, for example, showed a potential schism – the U.S. vs. a smaller ally – but NATO thus far has managed to avoid letting that affect collective defense. Publicly, NATO leaders stick to the line that Greenland is Danish territory and not up for debate. Any internal issues are handled quietly so as not to give Russia propaganda fodder about NATO discord. The silver lining is that the controversy prompted Denmark to invest more in defense, which NATO welcomes. There may also be an understanding now that NATO should have plans in case of unconventional threats to places like Greenland (e.g. hybrid tactics, foreign economic encroachment). In 2022, reports emerged that NATO was considering a more formal Arctic strategy, and by 2023 NATO had set up a Climate and Security Center to study impacts like ice melt on alliance operations ( NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy | ASP American Security Project ) ( NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy | ASP American Security Project ).
• NATO and the Arctic Council: Another consequence is the sidelining of the Arctic Council’s security taboo. The Arctic Council (which includes all Arctic states but explicitly excludes military security topics) has been the main forum for Arctic governance. However, since Russia’s war in Ukraine, Western members paused Arctic Council cooperation with Russia, effectively stalling the Council. In this vacuum, NATO and ad-hoc groupings have taken a larger role in Arctic matters that touch security. Issues once politely kept out of Arctic Council talks – like militarization, or NATO’s role – are now openly discussed in Brussels and Washington. NATO is careful not to present itself as taking over Arctic governance (so as not to provoke Russia unnecessarily), but it is undeniably more present. This could recalibrate the Arctic Council when (or if) it resumes – NATO-EU coordination might push for addressing security implications of climate change, something Russia traditionally resisted. In summary, NATO has been awakened to the Arctic’s strategic reality. The alliance is gradually enhancing its Arctic defense posture (though still behind Russia’s curve) and integrating the High North into its strategic planning. Greenland, as a part of NATO territory, will benefit from this increased focus – its defense is more assured with allies paying attention – but it also becomes a potential front line in any future conflict, which is a double-edged sword.

Greenland’s Role in Future Arctic Power Projection and Rivalry

Looking ahead, Greenland is poised to play a central role in the unfolding great-power competition in the Arctic. How this role develops will carry diplomatic, military, and economic consequences for the United States and its allies:

• Arctic Power Projection Hub: For the United States, maintaining and expanding capabilities in Greenland will be key to projecting power into the Arctic and even into the North Atlantic. With Russia fortifying its Arctic bases and China increasing its polar presence, the U.S. will lean on assets like Pituffik (Thule) Base and perhaps seek new arrangements in Greenland. We may see upgraded infrastructure – longer runways for strategic airlift, improved port facilities for Navy and Coast Guard vessels, and advanced radar and satellite stations. Already, the U.S. Space Force operates critical sensors from Greenland, and this mission is likely to grow as space and missile threats evolve (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense). If competition intensifies, Greenland could host rotational deployments of U.S. fighters or surveillance aircraft to guard the polar approaches. From Greenland, the U.S. can monitor the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean with relative ease, making it an unsinkable aircraft carrier of sorts for NATO. This gives the West a geographic advantage to balance Russia’s proximity on the Eurasian side. Greenland’s geography is strategically irreplaceable, and both Washington and Copenhagen know it – hence they will ensure it remains firmly on the Western side of any future standoff.
• Great-Power Interest and Greenlandic Autonomy: Greenland’s own trajectory toward possible independence will factor into great-power rivalry. If Greenland eventually holds an independence referendum (enabled by Danish law whenever Greenlanders decide) (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations), the outcome will have huge implications. An independent Greenland would need to decide on its alignments: Would it join NATO as a sovereign state? Sign a defense treaty with the U.S. or Denmark? Allow foreign bases? These questions make external powers very interested in Greenland’s politics. The U.S. would likely support Greenland’s self-determination but work hard to ensure that an independent Greenland remains a close defense partner (perhaps akin to Iceland’s status – no military but U.S. provides defense by agreement). Russia and China, for their part, would see an opportunity in a newly independent nation: through diplomatic and economic outreach, they might try to pull Greenland into neutrality or their orbit. Indeed, China has courted Greenland with offers to build airports and mining investments in the past. Security concerns about China and Russia “aggressive incursions” – economically or otherwise – are already raised by U.S. officials (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters). Vice President Vance’s 2025 visit explicitly warned that “Russia, China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways, naval routes and minerals” around Greenland (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters). This statement reflects U.S. intent to be Greenland’s partner of choice so that Chinese or Russian influence cannot take root. The competition is not just military; it’s also for Greenland’s political loyalty and economic partnerships. The coming years will likely see Greenland carefully navigating between attracting investment (perhaps even from Chinese companies for mining) and safeguarding its strategic alignment (leaning on the U.S./Europe for security). How well the U.S. and Denmark support Greenland’s development may determine whether Greenland feels the need to look elsewhere.
• Resource Race and Economic Leverage: If Arctic warming continues, by mid-century the region’s resource boom could be in full swing. Greenland’s oil and gas potential, which is currently untapped due to technical, environmental, and political reasons, might become viable. Similarly, rare earth mining projects could commence. In such a scenario, major powers will compete for access to Greenland’s resources. The U.S. will push for American and allied companies to have a stake, aiming to block China (which has shown interest in Greenland’s rare earths). Control of resources can translate to leverage: for example, whoever partners with Greenland on mining could gain long-term supply contracts. Denmark/EU might also vie for these opportunities to ensure Europe’s resource security. This economic dimension adds another layer to Greenland’s strategic weight. A resource-rich Greenland aligned with the West would bolster Western economies and reduce reliance on adversaries. Conversely, if China managed to dominate Greenland’s mining sector, it could gain a stranglehold on critical materials. All parties are aware of this high stakes game. Thus, expect diplomacy and investment in Greenland to intensify. The U.S. may offer more economic aid or trade privileges; the EU will similarly try to be generous (the EU has already exempted Greenland from some tariffs and supports its education sector); China might dangle infrastructure projects. Greenland’s government will have to balance these offers, ideally to its own benefit without compromising security.
• Environmental and Human Security Concerns: Amid the power projection talk, there is also the real issue of Greenland’s environment and people. Great-power rivalry could militarize the region, raising the risk of incidents or degradation (e.g. more nuclear-powered vessels traversing Arctic waters). NATO’s increased presence, while protective, might bring accidents or cultural friction. Greenland’s indigenous Inuit population of 57,000 will have their say on what future they want. They are acutely aware of climate change – their hunting, fishing, and ways of life are already impacted. Any militarization or resource exploitation will be weighed against environmental protection and traditional livelihoods. The U.S. and NATO must be mindful that winning Greenland’s trust means respecting its environment and community, not just viewing it as a strategic outpost. This aspect is where cooperation can still prevail: all Arctic players have a shared interest in search-and-rescue capabilities, oil spill prevention, and scientific research in the region. Greenland could become a venue for confidence-building measures (for instance, demilitarizing certain zones or establishing joint disaster response exercises) if great powers choose to pursue stability. However, given current trends, competitive dynamics are more pronounced.

In conclusion, Greenland stands at the nexus of the Arctic’s diplomatic, military, and economic future. What started as an off-the-cuff idea by President Trump has evolved into concrete policy considerations in Washington, Copenhagen, Brussels, and Moscow. The United States has been reminded of Greenland’s importance and appears determined not to let it slip from Western hands – going as far as high-level visits and floating extreme measures to make that point. Denmark, while irritated by U.S. methods, has been galvanized to shore up defenses and engage more deeply in Arctic strategy. Russia watches all this warily, strengthening its own Arctic bastion and issuing warnings against NATO encroachment. The EU is seeking a larger role to ensure its interests are represented, emphasizing a cooperative approach to what it calls the “high north.” All these threads converge on Greenland.

The next decade will likely see heightened activity around Greenland – diplomatically, militarily, and economically – as the Arctic melts and global interest in the region heats up. If managed well, Greenland could benefit from greater investment and remain a peaceful cornerstone of Arctic security under Western stewardship. If mismanaged, it could become a flashpoint of superpower rivalry, entangling the 56,000 Greenlanders in a contest far beyond their shores. For the U.S. and its allies, the task will be keeping Greenland close through respect and support, rather than compulsion. Trump’s legacy, unintentionally, was to sound an alarm about Arctic geopolitics that few can ignore now. Greenland, once on the periphery of world affairs, is firmly at the center of the Arctic chessboard – and U.S.-Denmark-EU relations, NATO strategy, and broader great-power competition will all continue to be shaped by moves made on this icy but strategic island.

References:

1. Council on Foreign Relations – What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations) (What Would Greenland’s Independence Mean for U.S. Interests? | Council on Foreign Relations)
2. Breaking Defense – Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense) (Denmark strengthens Arctic defense with $2B package for naval vessels, drones – Breaking Defense)
3. Reuters – Lavrov vows Russia to defend its Arctic interests (Lavrov vows Russia to defend its Arctic interests | Reuters) (Lavrov vows Russia to defend its Arctic interests | Reuters)
4. Reuters – Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters) (Vance accuses Denmark of not keeping Greenland safe from Russia, China | Reuters)
5. Reuters – U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland (U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland to counter China, Russia in Arctic | Reuters) (U.S. extends economic aid to Greenland to counter China, Russia in Arctic | Reuters)
6. The Arctic Institute – Greenland During Trump 2.0 (analysis of U.S. Arctic strategy) (Greenland During Trump 2.0: Is America Poised for an Historic Arctic Territorial Expansion? | The Arctic Institute – Center for Circumpolar Security Studies) (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel)
7. American Security Project – NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy ( NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy | ASP American Security Project ) ( NATO’s Urgent Arctic Defense Strategy | ASP American Security Project )
8. European External Action Service – The EU in the Arctic (The EU in the Arctic | EEAS) (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel)
9. Finabel – EU’s presence in the Arctic (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel) (EU’s presence in the Arctic – Finabel)
10. U.S. Department of Defense – 2024 Arctic Strategy Highlights ( New DOD Strategy Calls for Enhancements, Engagements, Exercises in Arctic > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News )