Why the Arctic and Greenland are back on the US map
As the Arctic melts due to climate change, new sea routes and resources emerge. The US sees Greenland as a key asset in its rivalry with Russia and China. But locals don’t appear to be playing along in this cold new race.
The world's most unlikely real estate deal
In 2019, then-US President Donald Trump proposed buying Greenland from Denmark. The idea was met with widespread disbelief and even ridicule. However, although not immediately obvious, this proposal highlighted a significant strategic interest in the Arctic region. It wasn’t just an outrageous Trump tantrum but part of a broader nationalist, transactional vision of foreign policy, where land and power are commodities.
The underlying motivations and implications of this renewed interest in Greenland are significant. It may be a vast territory, mostly covered in ice, with only 57,000 inhabitants, but it is portrayed as a gateway to the Arctic, critical for controlling new shipping lanes, rare earth minerals, and military reach. As the Arctic ice retreats due to global warming, it is exposing previously inaccessible sailing routes and vast stores of resources, turning the region into one of the world’s most interesting geopolitical hotspots.
The long shadow of Thule: a history of US-Greenland ties
The US’s interest in Greenland long predates Trump. As early as 1946, it offered $100 million to Denmark to buy the territory, and during the Cold War, it established 10 military bases with 10,000 troops, including the still-active Thule Air Base.
The climate crisis is redrawing Arctic maps, revealing new maritime trade routes and untapped mineral wealth
As Esade Professor José M. de Areilza observes in El Correo, Trump’s renewed fixation on Greenland reflects “an imperialist claim” that was not part of the expected script for his second term. Yet the island's significant tactical value, proven during World War II and the Cold War remains a central motivator.
Interestingly, Washington is allowed to maintain a military presence on Greenland due to a US-Danish treaty signed in 1951, which was designed to counter any military threat from Russia and China. US Vice President JD Vance’s recent visit to the US base at Pituffik was designed to leverage the existing US foothold, though to avoid rising diplomatic tension Vance cancelled all plans to venture outside the US zone and interact with locals.
Greenland’s new value: resources, routes, and reach
The climate crisis is redrawing Arctic maps. Melting glaciers are revealing viable new maritime trade routes and unlocking untapped mineral wealth. Greenland holds deposits of gold, lithium, iron, copper, cobalt, nickel, and uranium. Although oil drilling remains a controversial topic, global interest persists, even after Greenland suspended new exploration licenses in 2021.
Areilza explains that Trump's interest in Greenland was "a strategic calculation," recognizing its growing value due to climate change and its potential to enhance US military and economic reach.
Rebalancing global power: Trump, Russia, and China
The US interest in Greenland is a symptom of broader shifts in global power dynamics. Esade Professor Xavier Ferràs proposes that America is recalibrating its strategic focus, possibly moving away from traditional alliances in Europe to address emerging challenges posed by powers such as China and Russia.
What if they strike a deal to divide the world? Greenland for the US, Ukraine for Russia, Taiwan for China
Writing in La Vanguardia, Ferràs highlights the geoeconomic competition between major power blocs, with the US seeking to maintain its dominance through new strategic positions. Greenland's location and resources make it a valuable asset in this context, offering the US traction in the increasingly contested Arctic region.
But beyond rivalry, some speculate a darker alignment of interests may be emerging. Ferràs poses a provocative scenario: “What if they strike a deal to divide the world? Greenland for the US, Ukraine for Russia, Taiwan for China. Now, Europe is truly facing an existential threat. In the worst-case scenario, we could imagine a deliberate effort by these powers to weaken the EU.”
Europe's role in this ever-changing landscape appears diminished. Ferràs points to Europe's declining influence and lack of sufficient investment in innovation, contrasting it with the proactive strategies of China, Russia and the US.
The local view: Greenlanders, Denmark, and autonomy
While Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it has its own government and has been pushing for greater autonomy. The renewed international interest in the island has sparked discussions about sovereignty, economic development, and environmental protection.
Areilza says, “Greenland’s tiny political parties are dissatisfied with the policies of the Danish government, even though it covers half of the island’s budget.” There are tensions between local aspirations and external interests. Denmark, while sovereign over Greenland, often finds itself sidelined in discussions about the island's future. Trump is trying to leverage this dissatisfaction to his advantage.
85% of Greenlanders do not want to be part of the US
In 2019, the local response to Trump's proposal was blunt. Greenland's Prime Minister at the time, Kim Kielsen, stated, "Greenland is not for sale," reflecting the island's desire for greater self-determination and control over its resources. Prior to the recent elections, opposition leader Jens Frederik Nielsen (Democrats) re-stated this sentiment, as did Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen earlier this year.
That’s a “no”, then, Mr Trump.
But what do the locals think? Today, polls show that 85% of Greenlanders do not want to be part of the US, despite Trump’s claims to the contrary. Although 56% say they would vote for Greenlandic independence. The topic of breaking away from Danish oversight was a key issue during recent elections. Many citizens may wish to separate from Denmark’s rule, but that doesn’t mean they want to be part of the US.
Of those parties running in the elections, five party leaders expressed distrust in Trump, but the leader of the Qulleq party, Karl Ingemann, voiced trust in the US president – the party got only 1.1% of the vote. So it’s unlikely that Greenland’s politicians are going to embrace Trump’s plans for Greenland any time soon.
Cold frontiers, hot stakes
The Arctic is emerging as a new frontier in global politics, with Greenland at its center. As melting ice and local political tensions unlock new opportunities and challenges, the region's strategic importance will only grow. The actions of major powers in the Arctic will shape not only the future of the region but also the broader dynamics of international relations.
In this evolving landscape, the question remains: will the Arctic become a zone of cooperation or competition? The future of the Arctic—and the world order—may hinge on how nations choose to play this icy hand.