Why Greenland Matters: Great-Power Rivalry in a Melting Arctic

The idea that the United States wants to acquire Greenland, most visibly articulated during the Trump administration but rooted in a much longer historical trajectory. It reveals less about territorial ambition and more about the evolving nature of global power politics. The United States has previously attempted to purchase Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold after World War II. Notably, U.S. has maintained a continuous military presence in Greenland through the Thule Air Base. In this sense, the idea of acquisition is not a sudden anomaly but an expression of long-standing strategic interests. Trump in his recent statement claiming to acquire Greenland “Whether they like it or not” this statement disregarded Greenland’s political autonomy, its Indigenous Inuit population, and Denmark’s sovereignty. In response to Trump’s statement, Greenland’s Prime minister rejected U.S. takeover plans. This approach of Trump reinforced perceptions of American unilateralism toward smaller political actors, raising security and diplomatic concerns about how great powers will pursue security.

Greenland’s significance lies at the intersection of geography, resources, and climate change. As the world’s largest island, Greenland occupies a pivotal position between North America, Europe, and the Arctic Ocean. Notably, The location making it strategically crucial in any future Arctic security architecture. Melting ice driven by accelerating climate change, are transforming Greenland from a frozen periphery into a focal point for global powers. Beneath its ice lie vast reserves of rare earth minerals ranking it 8th in the world rare earth reserves essential for modern technologies and the global energy transition. Moreover, Greenland’s surrounding waters are becoming increasingly navigable, potentially shortening global shipping routes between Asia, Europe, and North America. Yet this growing importance also places Greenland in a threat, caught between environmental fragility and geopolitical competition. The island’s future will test whether global powers can balance strategic interests with sustainable development and respect for Indigenous rights.

From the U.S. perspective, Greenland is central to its broader strategic interests in both the Arctic and the North Atlantic. Militarily, the island functions as a forward operating location for missile defense, early warning systems, and space surveillance. If U.S. controls or influences Greenland it will enhances America’s ability to secure the Arctic Ocean. Arctic Ocean is increasingly viewed as a new frontier of strategic competition rather than a frozen buffer zone. Economically, access to Greenland’s mineral wealth aligns with Washington’s efforts to reduce dependence on Chinese rare earth element’s supply chains. As the U.S. is dependent on Chinese rare earth elements crucial to defence and high-tech industries. Politically, deeper engagement in Greenland allows the U.S. to reaffirm its leadership role within NATO and counterbalance emerging non-Western influence in the Arctic. However, these interests also risk militarising a region that has historically been governed by cooperation and low tension.

China and Russia, meanwhile, view Greenland and the Arctic through lenses shaped by their own strategic imperatives, contributing to the region’s security. Russia, with its extensive Arctic coastline, sees the Arctic as central to its national identity, economic future, and military posture. It has significantly expanded its Arctic military infrastructure, reopened Cold War-era bases, and asserted control over the Northern Sea Route. China, despite lacking Arctic territory, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and incorporated the region into its Belt and Road Initiative through the concept of a “Polar Silk Road.” Chinese investments in Greenland’s mining and infrastructure projects, though limited so far, have raised alarms in Washington and Copenhagen. Together, Chinese economic engagement and Russian military assertiveness challenge Western dominance in the Arctic, turning Greenland into a focal point of strategic rivalry rather than a neutral or cooperative space.

Conclusively, the debate over U.S. interest in acquiring Greenland reflects a broader transformation of global geopolitics driven by climate change, resource competition, and shifting power balances. Greenland is no longer a remote, frozen land on the margins of international affairs; it is rapidly becoming a central arena where the interests of major powers converge and collide. While the United States, China, and Russia each pursue rational strategic objectives, the danger lies in treating Greenland merely as an object of competition rather than a political community with its own aspirations. A sustainable and stable Arctic future will depend not on ownership or dominance, but on multilateral cooperation, respect for sovereignty, and responsible governance. How the great powers engage with Greenland today may ultimately determine whether the Arctic becomes a zone of conflict or a model for peaceful adaptation in a changing world.