ISLAMABAD — In the high-stakes world of 21st-century geopolitics, the Arctic has shifted from a zone of “low tension” to the premier theater of Great Power competition. As the ice thins, a new “Great Game” is heating up, and Greenland sits right at the center of the chessboard. We’ve all seen the January 2026 headlines regarding Washington’s renewed interest in the island, but behind the bold rhetoric lies a massive, invisible wall that prevents any sudden moves: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
For Denmark, Greenland is a matter of national identity and sovereign integrity. For the United States, it is a strategic prize of the highest order. But for the alliance, Greenland is the “glue” that holds the North Atlantic together. Understanding why the U.S. cannot—and will not—simply “take” Greenland requires looking past military hardware and into the heart of the world’s most powerful security pact.
Imagine the fallout if the U.S. moved to forcibly occupy a part of the Danish Kingdom. Under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, Denmark would have every right to call for help. This creates a nightmare scenario for Washington. The alliance has no provision for a “civil war” between members.
The reality is that any hostile move toward Greenland would trigger a total collapse of NATO credibility. Furthermore, Article 6 of the treaty explicitly includes the islands under the jurisdiction of any member in the North Atlantic area. If the U.S. violates that trust to grab land, it effectively dismantles the security architecture of the Western world. For Washington, trading the stability of the entire European security order for one island—regardless of its mineral wealth—is a strategic catastrophe.
The U.S. presence on the island is anchored by the Pituffik Space Base. This facility is the crown jewel of the North American aerospace defense. Greenland’s location allows the U.S. to monitor the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK), a naval choke point essential for bottling up the Russian Northern Fleet.
However, this base only exists because of a partnership. Since the 1951 Defense Agreement, Denmark has held the keys to this early-warning system. If the U.S. tries to bully Denmark, Copenhagen can pull the plug on American access. Losing Pituffik would leave the U.S. blind to threats coming over the North Pole. In this struggle, Denmark is the landlord, and the U.S. is a tenant who cannot afford to be evicted.
The current push for Greenland is part of a broader re-emergence of the Monroe Doctrine, where Washington views the entire Western Hemisphere as its exclusive sphere of influence. This “Trump Corollary” argues that Greenland’s geographic proximity to North America makes it a “natural” extension of U.S. territory.
But this 19th-century logic fails in a 21st-century multilateral world. Unlike 1823, the U.S. today relies on a network of 31 allies to project power globally. To treat Greenland like a colonial prize would alienate every “Middle Power” ally from Canada to Norway. As the Danish Prime Minister recently stated, the idea of NATO would be broken if the leading member used its might to annex the territory of another.
Washington’s urgency is driven by the growing shadow of Russia and China in the “High North.” Russia has spent years restoring Soviet-era airfields and militarizing its Northern Sea Route. Meanwhile, China has declared itself a “Near-Arctic State” and is pushing its Polar Silk Road initiative.
For the U.S., an aggressive takeover of Greenland would be a gift to its rivals. It would allow Moscow and Beijing to frame themselves as the “defenders of international law” against American imperialism. To maintain its leadership in the Arctic Council, Washington must lead through consensus, not coercion.
Greenland is home to over 56,000 people. Prime Minister Múte B. Egede has been firm: Greenlanders are looking for independence, not a new master. Under the 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government, the people of Greenland have a recognized right to self-determination under international law. In 2026, the U.S. cannot govern a territory against its will without becoming a global pariah.
The EU views Greenland as a critical partner for “Green Minerals” like lithium and neodymium under the EU-Greenland Strategic Partnership. The island holds some of the world’s largest untapped rare earth deposits, such as the Kvanefjeld project.
If the U.S. uses “Gunboat Diplomacy,” it loses the EU’s cooperation. The European Union has already begun financing strategic mining projects in Greenland to secure its own supply chains. Washington needs Europe’s support to decouple from China’s mineral dominance. Alienating the continent over a territorial grab would be a strategic blunder of historical proportions.
Even if a “purchase” were theoretically possible, the economic cost of maintaining Greenland is staggering. Denmark provides an annual block grant of over $500 million to support Greenland’s infrastructure. For a U.S. administration already facing domestic budget debates, taking on the financial burden of a massive, underdeveloped Arctic territory would meet significant internal political resistance.
Ultimately, the “Greenland Question” won’t be settled by warships. It will be settled by diplomats, engineers, and investors. The NATO framework ensures that Greenland is “untouchable” by force. Washington’s path must be paved with cooperation and collaborative investment rather than threats.
For the U.S., the North Atlantic Treaty is not just a tool to manage Europe; it is a legal boundary that prevents it from taking actions that would destroy its own global credibility. Greenland is safe from an “attack” not because it has a big army, but because the cost of breaking the NATO promise is simply too high for the United States to pay.
Be the first to comment