Greenland shifts from the strategic periphery to the center of the Arctic dispute

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

√ In recent months, the U.S. president has toned down his rhetoric 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 on a central role in the geopolitical arena, evolving from a strategic periphery to a key player in global geopolitics. Accelerating climate change has opened up access to critical natural resources and created new maritime routes, thereby enhancing the island’s military significance. As a result, Greenland has become a major area of interest, intensifying competition among major powers.

Since his return to the White House in January 2025, Trump has pursued a public and confrontational campaign to annex Greenland; this has fractured the quiet Western consensus that had managed great-power competition in the High North with relative stability. By treating Greenland as a transactional asset rather than an allied territory, the United States risks accelerating the very dynamics it seeks to contain: Chinese economic penetration, Russian military assertiveness, and a drift toward Greenlandic autonomy that would strip the West of its most strategically positioned Arctic outpost. The most pressing risk is not direct confrontation over Greenland, but a gradual erosion of NATO in the High North that Beijing and Moscow will want to exploit.

A number of 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 maintain its dominance in the Arctic and secure critical supply chains, particularly those involving rare earth elements. China, meanwhile, 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 footprint across the Arctic, reinforcing 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, resource potential, and evolving political status place it at the crossroads of security, economic, and environmental dynamics. The result is a more competitive and potentially unstable Arctic region, where cooperation is increasingly strained.

Greenland’s strategic importance

Greenland occupies a uniquely strategic position between North America, Europe, and the Arctic, making it critical for military surveillance, missile defense, and maritime control. Its proximity to emerging Arctic sea lanes, including routes connected to the Northern Sea Route, enhances its geopolitical importance as polar navigation becomes more viable.

The Arctic’s transformation from a frozen periphery to an active geopolitical arena is driven by an irreversible factor: accelerating climate change. As ice sheets retreat, Greenland’s strategic importance grows along three fronts simultaneously.

First, previously inaccessible deposits of rare earth elements, uranium, and critical minerals are now being targeted for exploitation. While doubts about their financial viability remain, exploring these opportunities offers a chance to counter the West’s structural dependence on China for rare earth supply chains essential to defense manufacturing and advanced technology sectors. Second, the retreat of Arctic ice is extending the navigability of High North maritime corridors, with the potential to reshape global trade patterns and elevate Greenland’s position within emerging routes between Europe, Asia, and North America. Third, Greenland’s geographic position between the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean makes it indispensable for missile early-warning systems, space surveillance, and naval freedom of operation—functions currently anchored at the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Force Base), whose bilateral legal basis rests on a 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark.

None of these dynamics is entirely new. What is structurally new is the convergence of these factors: access to resources, maritime viability, and military significance are intensifying at the same time that the institutional mechanisms designed to manage Arctic rivalry—such as the Arctic Council—have been effectively paralyzed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The result is a growing and intensifying competition without a functioning diplomatic framework to rein it in.

Three-way competition

Before Trump’s renewed push regarding Greenland, great-power competition in the Arctic had been intensifying. The United States maintained strategic primacy through Pituffik and actively blocked Chinese infrastructure investments on the island on national security grounds, including opposition to Chinese-financed airport expansion projects and interference in mining ventures.

China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and has pursued a strategy of patient economic penetration through its Polar Silk Road initiative—an Arctic extension of the Belt and Road—and seeks to finance airport expansions and acquire stakes in rare earth projects such as Kvanefjeld, as well as expand its icebreaker fleet’s expeditions. These efforts are closely tied to China’s broader objective 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 over strategic dependence and security risks.

China’s 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 through the modernization of its Northern Fleet, the deployment of advanced missile systems, and the expansion of Arctic instructions its territory, thereby strengthening its nuclear and strategic deterrence capabilities without resorting to direct confrontation.

The United States: security, deterrence, and control

For the United States, Greenland is a cornerstone of its Arctic security strategy. Its primary objective is to maintain strategic dominance in the High North, ensuring early-warning capabilities, missile defense coverage, and freedom of operation in the region. The modernization of the Pituffik Space Base reflects this priority. The base plays a vital role in ballistic missile detection and space monitoring, 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 airport construction and mining projects, citing national security concerns. Donald Trump’s 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland, while widely criticized, highlighted the strategic value Washington places on the island. More broadly, Greenland serves as a buffer on NATO’s northern flank, which strengthens transatlantic security and deters potential adversaries.

Trump’s rhetoric, revived in 2025, targets an allied territory through coercive language. Although he has since ruled out an invasion, his disregard for the Greenlanders could backfire and prove to be a diplomatic boon. China can now credibly position itself as a respectful partner in Greenland’s self-determination, in contrast to an overbearing United States, while Russia can cite internal discord within the Alliance as evidence that NATO’s cohesion is structurally fragile. More specifically, U.S. pressure has inflamed public opinion in Greenland and Denmark in ways that may raise the political cost of security cooperation.

Implications for global governance

NATO’s northern flank relies heavily on Danish sovereignty over a territory in the face of simultaneous pressures now coming from Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. Denmark has historically managed this imbalance through multilateral institutions. The Arctic Council provided a forum for governance. That mechanism has effectively been suspended since the Council’s seven Western members halted cooperation with Russia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine launched by President Putin. The diplomatic buffer that once mitigated Arctic rivalry no longer functions, and for the time being, no equivalent institution has emerged to replace it.

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

Trump’s pressure may accelerate that process; Greenlandic decision-makers may be inclined to use their strategic value as leverage to attract a diverse range of external partners and reduce dependence on any single power, which would introduce significant and largely unpredictable vulnerabilities into the Western Arctic architecture, which is already under strain.

Plausible scenarios

A plausible scenario is one of gradual escalation in which no actor changes course. China expands its economic engagement through third-party intermediaries, and Russia increases its military deployments in the Arctic. Competition among the United States, China, and Russia intensifies. The paralysis of the Arctic Council becomes a structural problem rather than a temporary challenge.

A more stable outcome remains possible if the United States focuses on alliance management, returning to a bilateral framework with Denmark, thereby strengthening NATO’s presence in the High North to deter Russian escalation. Greenland develops its critical minerals sector gradually 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 immediate competition, in terms of alignment, from all major Arctic actors. Trump’s pressure, intended to consolidate U.S. control, may be the single factor most likely to produce the outcome least favorable to Western strategic coherence.

If Washington were to move beyond rhetorical pressure to assert de facto control over Greenland—whether through a direct military presence, economic coercion of Copenhagen, or unilateral security declarations—the damage to Western credibility would be severe and largely irreversible. It would fracture the alliance’s northern flank.

The primary strategic risk at play is the erosion of the conditions necessary for any sustainable Western Arctic strategy. China’s expanding Arctic capabilities and Russia’s sustained military buildup in the High North are long-term structural pressures that the West can only address collectively.

Spanish version