The United States’ renewed interest in Greenland signals a strategic shift that Denmark cannot afford to ignore. While Washington frames its engagement as a means to strengthen transatlantic ties, bolster Arctic security, and counter Russian and Chinese influence, the reality is that the US sees Greenland as a crucial piece in the emerging Arctic power contest. This rekindled focus, however, puts Denmark in a complex position ~ caught between preserving sovereignty over the vast, resource-rich territory and maintaining its historically close alliance with the US.
Greenland’s strategic importance has long been recognised, but its significance has grown as climate change reshapes Arctic geopolitics. Melting ice is opening new shipping lanes and exposing untapped mineral resources, making Greenland a highly contested space among major powers.
Advertisement
The US, keen to secure a foot – hold in the region, has increased diplomatic and economic overtures, seeking to expand its influence beyond its military presence at Thule Air Base. The Trump administration’s 2019 attempt to purchase Greenland was dismissed as outlandish, but it highlighted Washington’s long-term ambitions. Today, the approach is more nuanced ~ offering infrastructure investment and economic aid to Greenland, bypassing Copenhagen to directly engage with Nuuk.
Denmark, as Green land’s sovereign administrator, must tread carefully. It relies on its relationship with the US for defence cooperation and economic stability within Nato, yet it also faces growing pressure from Greenland’s own political leaders pushing for greater autonomy, if not outright independence. A direct US-Greenland partnership, without Danish oversight, risks undermining Copenhagen’s control and accelerating Green land’s political separation. Denmark must therefore balance between maintaining its Arctic strategy and responding to Washington’s increasing influence. Moreover, the US push into Greenland is not occurring in isolation.
China has expressed interest in Greenland’s rare earth minerals, and Russia has ramped up its Arctic military presence. For Denmark, this means managing a delicate equilibrium ~ resisting overt US intervention while ensuring Greenland does not drift into Beijing’s economic orbit or Moscow’s security sphere. Simply opposing US engagement would not be a viable strategy; instead, Denmark should leverage its position to negotiate joint investments that benefit both Copenhagen and Nuuk, ensuring that any American involvement aligns with Danish interests. The bigger question remains whether Denmark can truly sustain its sovereignty over Greenland in the long term.
As Nuuk asserts more control over its economic future, with or without full independence, Denmark’s leverage will wane. If Washing – ton continues to sidestep Copenhagen in dealing with Greenland, it could set a precedent that weakens Denmark’s influence permanently. Denmark’s best course of action is to redefine its Arctic policy ~ offering Greenland economic incentives and infrastructural support that diminish the appeal of direct US engagement while reinforcing shared interests within the kingdom.
Ultimately, the US interest in Greenland is a geopolitical reality that Denmark cannot dismiss. The challenge lies in ensuring that any future developments in Greenland’s governance do not erode Denm ark’s role in the Arctic, while also preventing external powers from exerting undue influence.
