Greenland’s Strategic Value: How Security and Resources Have Rendered the Island a Hotspot for Geopolitical Competition

Greenland’s unique natural terrain and location in the Arctic pose a strategic intersection of trade, diplomacy, and environmental concerns.

Image Credit: EPA Images

On December 21, 2024, then-President-elect Donald Trump stated that “ownership and control over Greenland is an absolute necessity” for United States national security. Trump compounded his assertion by declining to rule out the use of force in this pursuit once President. But why would the U.S. take such measures to gain this peaceful and largely uninhabitable island? With an annual GDP of $3 billion — 1/7,000 of the U.S.’s — and a population of roughly 56,000, what purpose could a purchase of the autonomous territory offer? The reason behind President Trump’s aspirations lies in the strategic and economic potential of Greenland’s location and subsoil resources. As the island aims for eventual independence under Prime Minister Mute Egede and his Inuit-led government, considering alternatives to autonomy under the Kingdom of Denmark opens the door for Greenland to become a key player in geopolitical and geoeconomic rivalries. 

Arctic Security

In 2019 the Pentagon defined the Arctic as “an increasingly competitive domain.” Since the conclusion of the Cold War, the establishment of intergovernmental institutions and agreements has rendered the Arctic a region of international cooperation. However, new security strategies have been promoted in response to changing geopolitical scales; growing Sino-Russian alignment amplifies Chinese and Russian intentions to stake claims in the region. Greenland, therefore, poses a means of protecting national security interests. 

One such interest lies in the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, the prime access route for submarines and commercial ships into the North Atlantic and the shortest route for a Russian missile to reach the continental U.S. By providing a strategic upper hand to track these vessels, the GIUK gap is an important maritime region for the U.S. Although the U.S. has maintained Pituffik Space Base on Greenland’s northwest coast since World War II, a greater military presence on the island would allow for greater installation of sensors and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, increasing surveillance capabilities, and preparing the North American defense system for any conflicts emerging from the Arctic. 

Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, validated the U.S.’s security concerns in response to growing Russian and Chinese activity in the region. In recent years, Moscow has continued to invest heavily in Arctic defense capabilities and Beijing has sought to place ports and radars in the Arctic Circle. The U.S.’s historic lack of commitment to Arctic security and investment leaves them lagging, providing an explanation for Trump’s preoccupations. This attempt to safeguard national interests is not unique to the U.S., as Chinese and Russian Arctic expansion draws concern from other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members. Such concerns are evident as the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, claims defence plans, military exercises, and joint forces are being developed to ensure NATO can’t be influenced by Sino-Russian investment or cooperation in the North Atlantic. 

Copenhagen runs the island’s defense systems with a Joint Arctic Command, which has re-committed itself to ensuring the Arctic does not become a stage for international conflict. Such a commitment is difficult to maintain as all Arctic states except Russia are NATO members. The fracturing effect of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and subsequent isolation of its diplomatic relationships renders Moscow’s behavior unpredictable. Additionally, in 2017, the Kremlin announced plans to upgrade its Northern Fleet to “phase NATO out of the Arctic.” Despite its improbability, should Arctic conflict break out due to competing regional interests or spillover from confrontation between global superpowers, maintaining situational awareness in Greenland and its surrounding waterways poses a considerable advantage for any entity with a foothold on the island. 

Resource Control

Further, great powers appear ready to compete over the resources the island offers. Greenland’s economy is one of the smallest in the world, yet its resource wealth is immense. Among other natural reserves, the island possesses 43 of the 50 earth minerals deemed “critical” by the U.S. government. These minerals are used in manufacturing batteries and military equipment, in addition to the electric cars and wind turbines of the global “green transition.” Oil is another rich deposit in Greenland’s repertoire of natural resources. Wells off Greenland’s coast could yield 52 billion barrels of oil; a store that has been largely untapped as offshore drilling and exploration were banned by Greenland’s government in 2021. 

These resources have gone relatively unexploited as the territory’s harsh and remote landscape rendered extraction unfeasible, but as the climate warms, these resources are becoming more accessible. New opportunities for undersea oil and gas drilling, access to lucrative fisheries, and the ability to mine minerals from the seafloor prompt nations to pursue access to these supplies. Additionally, many Western countries see Greenland’s natural resources as a means of reducing dependence on Chinese mineral supply chains and are beginning to seek mining permits and agreement. One such partnership was negotiated between the European Union and Greenland in 2023 to support Greenland’s resource development while enabling the EU to secure sustainable supplies of raw materials to deliver on their green and digital transitions.

Evident in this image of a drilling ship, Greenland has come to embody economic ambitions, both cooperative and predatory, in response to the island’s abundance of natural resources. 

Image Credit: Manuel Erst

As Arctic sea ice melts, previously inefficient and treacherous shipping routes through the Arctic — the Northwest Passage, along North America’s northern coast, and the Transpolar Sea Route, through the center of the Arctic Ocean — would become more commercially viable. This positions Greenland to become a key player in marine management and infrastructure. Such control over maritime traffic between Asian, European, and North American markets allows those with influence in Greenland to dictate international trade terms. Private sector business development and plans to increase tourism with a new airport present further opportunities to develop economic investments in Greenland; the island is seeking to boost its economy by promoting industries beyond fishing, which currently makes up 95% of exports. 

Greenland also hosts a growing race for innovation. Dryden Brown, a Californian entrepreneur, founded a startup aiming to make Mars habitable and is one of many suggesting using Greenland to develop the necessary technology and practices. This presents the advantages Greenland’s terrain and environment hold for spatial activities and advancements. Similarly, as a frozen island warming 4 times faster than the rest of the world, Greenland poses research opportunities through which meteorologists may develop greater understanding of climate change processes and estimates. Placing satellites and collecting data in Greenland would allow nations to study extreme weather events, such as ocean currents and melt-freeze cycles. Research professor Marco Tedesco from Columbia University’s Climate School claims Greenland is a “time machine that offers a glimpse of the past through ice — and insight into what could happen to our planet and the cities we live in.” Greenland, therefore, is an important hub for information and ground-breaking discoveries.

Greenland and Future Diplomacy

Prime Minister Egede has consistently emphasized that Greenland’s future is for its people to decide. Any blatant rejection of this self-determination would weaken the global order, creating divisions within NATO and providing adversaries with opportunities to exploit Western discord or escalate Arctic militarization. Trump and his advisors are aware Greenland is not for sale yet he continues to express interest in the island; apparent in his joint address to Congress where he announced the U.S. will acquire Greenland “one way or another.” This exemplifies his administration's commercial approach to international relations — an approach similarly proposed for the Panama Canal and Canada. Ultimately, America will lose allies if it coerces a nation to cede territory. 

Greenland’s strategic and economic value should not be overestimated, as foreign competition may not materialize and military posturing is no new phenomenon in the region. That said, with Greenlandic independence closer on the horizon, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to shape the circumstances in which the independent nation may emerge. The relationship between Nuuk and Copenhagen has not always been agreeable, owing to systemic injustices imposed by Denmark, and U.S. interference only adds fuel to this domestic fire. Ultimately, the U.S. does not need to “own” Greenland to invest in critical resources or military bases. Prioritizing the Greenlandic people’s wishes could go a long way in developing a mutually beneficial relationship, whether independence transpires or not. Greenland is due to hold parliamentary elections in March, where the island’s residents will decide how much cooperation with the U.S., NATO, or other entities they support. They may determine these partnerships are more trouble than they are worth if they pose exploitative relationships rather than facilitate the island’s removal of “the shackles of colonialism” for good.