Greenland is moving from the strategic periphery to the center of the Arctic dispute

PDF version / English version / SRA 2026 Regional report [full PDF]

√ Since his return to the White House in January 2025, Trump has publicly insisted on his desire to take over Greenland, even if it means sending in troops.

√ In recent months, the U.S. president has softened his tone and ruled out an invasion, but the discussion undermined NATO’s unity.

√ Danish authorities and pressure from Washington have blocked several Chinese projects on the island, but Beijing—like Moscow—remains committed to its Arctic ambitions.

Greenland has taken center stage in the geopolitical arena, evolving from a strategic outpost to a key player in global geopolitics. Rapid climate change has facilitated access to crucial natural resources and opened up new sea routes, thereby increasing the military significance of this large island. As result, Greenland has become an area great interest, intensifying skill the major powers.

Since his return to the White House in January 2025, Trump has publicly insisted on his attempt to annex Greenland, fracturing the quiet Western consensus that had managed the skill major powers in the Arctic with relative stability. By treating Greenland as a transactional asset rather than an allied territory, the United States risks accelerating precisely the dynamics it seeks to contain: Chinese economic penetration, growing Russian military influence, and a drift toward Greenlandic autonomy that would deprive the West of its most strategic Arctic outpost. The most pressing risk is not direct confrontation over Greenland, but a gradual erosion of NATO’s cohesion in the High North, which Beijing and Moscow will seek to exploit.

Various actors are vying for dominance in the region. On the one hand, the United States seeks to consolidate its strategic presence on the island to preserve its dominance in the Arctic and secure critical supply chains, particularly for rare earth elements. China, for its part, has pursued a strategy of economic penetration through infrastructure investment, resource acquisition, and its broader Polar Silk Road initiative. At the same time, Russia continues to expand its military presence in the Arctic, bolstering its strategic deterrence capabilities and challenging Western influence in the region.

These overlapping ambitions are reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic. Greenland’s geographic location, its resource potential, and its evolving political status place it at the crossroads of security, economic, and environmental dynamics. The result a more competitive and potentially unstable Arctic region, where cooperation is increasingly under strain.

Strategic importance

Greenland occupies a unique strategic position between North America, Europe, and the Arctic, making it a critical hub for military surveillance, missile defense, and maritime control. Its proximity to emerging Arctic shipping routes, including those connected to the Northern Sea Route, increases its geopolitical significance as polar navigation becomes more viable.

The transformation of the Arctic from a frozen frontier into an active geopolitical arena is driven by an irreversible factor: the acceleration of climate change. As the polar ice caps retreat, Greenland’s strategic importance is growing simultaneously in three key areas.

First, deposits of rare earth elements , uranium, and critical minerals—which were previously inaccessible—are now ideally coming into focus for exploitation. While doubts about their financial viability remain, their consideration offers an opportunity to counter the West’s structural dependence on China regarding rare earth supply chains, which are essential for the manufacture of defense equipment and advanced technology sectors. Second, the retreat of Arctic ice is expanding the navigability of Arctic sea lanes, with the potential to reshape global trade patterns and elevate Greenland’s position on emerging routes between Europe, Asia, and North America. Third, Greenland’s geographical position between the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean makes it indispensable for missile early warning systems, space surveillance, and freedom of naval operations—functions currently carried out at the Pituffik Space Station (formerly Thule Air Base), whose bilateral legal basis stems from a agreement between the United States and Denmark.

None of these dynamics are entirely new. What is structurally new, however, is their simultaneity: access to resources, maritime viability, and military significance are intensifying at the same time that institutional mechanisms designed to manage rivalry in the Arctic—such as the committee —have been virtually paralyzed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The result a skill and intensifying skill without a functional framework to contain it.

skill powers

Even before Trump’s renewed campaign regarding Greenland, skill the major powers in the Arctic had already intensified. The United States maintained its strategic dominance through Pituffik and actively blocked Chinese infrastructure investments on the island on national security grounds, including civil service examination Chinese-funded airport expansion projects and interfering in mining projects.

China has declared itselfan “Arctic-adjacent state”and has pursued a strategy of gradual economic penetration through its Polar Silk Road initiative, an Arctic extension of the Belt and Road Initiative. It seeks to finance airport expansion and acquire stakes in rare earth projects such as Kvanefjeld, in addition to expanding the operations of its icebreaker fleet. These efforts are closely linked to China’s goal of securing access to critical minerals and reducing vulnerabilities in its supply chains. However, many of these initiatives have been blocked or limited by Danish authorities and U.S. influence, reflecting growing concerns about strategic dependence and security risks.

approach can be characterized as one of strategic patience, combining economic engagement with long-term geopolitical ambitions. Russia, on the other hand, has expanded its military presence in the Arctic by modernizing its Northern Fleet, deploying advanced missile systems, and expanding instructions within its territory, thereby strengthening its nuclear and strategic deterrence capabilities without resorting to direct confrontation.

United States: Security, Deterrence, and Control

For the United States, Greenland is a cornerstone of its Arctic security strategy. Its goal is to maintain strategic dominance in the Arctic by ensuring early warning capabilities, missile defense coverage, and freedom of operations in the region. The modernization of the Pituffik Space Station reflects this priority. The base plays a vital role in ballistic missile detection and space surveillance, making it indispensable to U.S. and NATO defense systems.

Washington has also taken steps to limit the influence of external actors, particularly China. U.S. authorities have actively opposed Chinese investments in Greenlandic infrastructure, including the construction of airports and mining projects, citing national security concerns. Donald proposal 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland, though widely criticized, highlighted the strategic value Washington places on the island. More broadly, Greenland serves as a buffer zone along NATO’s northern flank, strengthening transatlantic security and deterring potential adversaries.

speech , revived in 2025, attacks an allied territory through coercive rhetoric. Even though he later ruled out an invasion, his disregard for the Greenlanders could backfire and turn into a diplomatic advantage. China can now credibly position itself as a partner Greenland’s self-determination, in contrast to an overbearing United States, while Russia can cite the Alliance’s internal discord as test the structural fragility of NATO’s cohesion. More specifically, U.S. pressure has exacerbated public opinion in Greenland and Denmark, which could raise the political cost of subject cooperation.

Implications for global governance

NATO’s northern flank relies fundamentally on Danish sovereignty over a territory facing simultaneous pressures currently emanating from Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. Historically, Denmark has managed this imbalance through multilateral institutions. Notably, the committee has served as a forum for the region’s governance. This mechanism has been effectively suspended since the seven Western members of committee cooperation with Russia following President Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The diplomatic mechanism that once mitigated rivalry in the Arctic no longer functions, and no equivalent institution has yet emerged to replace it.

Nuuk has consistently leveraged external interest in its abundant natural resources to advance the cause of greater autonomy from Copenhagen, and its independence movement enjoys considerable domestic support.

Pressure from Trump could accelerate that process. Greenlandic policymakers might be inclined to use their strategic value as leverage to attract various external partners and reduce dependence on a single power, which would introduce significant and largely unpredictable vulnerabilities into the architecture of the Western Arctic, which is already under pressure.

Plausible scenarios

One plausible scenario is a gradual escalation in which no actor changes course. China expands its economic engagement through intermediaries, and Russia increases its military deployments in the Arctic. skill the U.S., China, and Russia intensify. The paralysis of committee becomes a structural problem rather than a temporary challenge.

A result stable result remains possible if the United States focuses on management , resuming a framework with Denmark, thereby strengthening NATO’s presence in the Arctic to deter Russian escalation. Greenland gradually develops its critical mining sector under Western oversight, and relative stability is maintained.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that Greenland might develop a desire for independence, while lacking the institutional and financial capacity to manage current international pressures. Greenland would face an skill in terms of aligning itself with all the major Arctic actors. Pressure from Trump, aimed at consolidating U.S. control, could be the factor most likely to produce the result favorable result for Western strategic coherence.

If Washington goes beyond rhetorical pressure to exert de facto control over Greenland—whether through a direct military presence, economic coercion against Copenhagen, or unilateral security declarations—it would seriously damage Western credibility, largely in an irreversible way. This would fracture the alliance’s northern flank.

The primary strategic risk at stake is the erosion of the conditions that underpin a sustainable Western strategy in the Arctic. China’s growing capabilities in the Arctic and Russia’s ongoing military buildup in the region are long-term structural pressures that the West can only manage collectively.