Why Greenland Matters to the United States, and Why Some People Are Sceptical

8 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Greenland has become an increasingly prominent part of global geopolitical discussion, particularly in relation to the United States. On the surface, the interest can appear puzzling. Greenland has a small population, harsh conditions, and limited infrastructure. Yet for Washington, it represents one of the most strategically significant territories in the world.

Snow-covered mountains and rocky peaks rise above a deep blue sea, under a clear sky, creating a serene and majestic landscape.

At the same time, recent events elsewhere have led many observers to question whether security alone explains American interest in regions rich in natural resources. Greenland now sits at the intersection of strategic necessity and public scepticism.

Greenland’s strategic importance to US security

The primary and most consistently stated reason for US interest in Greenland is security.

Greenland occupies a crucial geographic position between North America and Europe. It sits along the shortest route for ballistic missiles travelling between Russia and the United States. This makes it essential for early warning systems and missile defence.

The US has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the Second World War. Today, Pituffik Space Base plays a key role in monitoring missile launches, tracking satellites, and supporting NATO defence architecture. These systems are designed to protect not only the United States but also its allies.

As Arctic ice continues to melt, the region is becoming more accessible to military and commercial activity. Russia has expanded its Arctic bases, and China has declared itself a near-Arctic state. From Washington’s perspective, maintaining influence in Greenland helps prevent rivals from gaining a foothold in a region that directly affects North Atlantic security.

The Arctic, climate change, and future competition

Climate change has transformed Greenland’s relevance. What was once largely inaccessible is now opening up.

New shipping routes could shorten trade paths between Asia, Europe, and North America. Scientific research, undersea cables, and surveillance infrastructure are all becoming more viable. Greenland’s location places it at the centre of these emerging routes.

For the United States, this makes Greenland less of a remote territory and more of a forward position in an increasingly contested region.

Red Mobil barrel secured with ropes on wood structure, against a cloudy sky. Blue pipes and rusty metal bar in background.

Oil and resource speculation as a secondary factor

While security dominates official policy discussions, resource speculation is often raised as an additional reason for interest in Greenland.

Greenland is believed to hold potential offshore oil and gas reserves, as well as deposits of rare earth elements, lithium, graphite, and other critical minerals. These materials are essential for electronics, renewable energy systems, and defence technologies.

It is important to note that Greenland currently restricts new oil and gas exploration licences, largely due to environmental concerns. Large-scale extraction remains difficult, expensive, and politically sensitive.

For the United States, oil is not a strategic necessity in Greenland. The country is already one of the world’s largest oil producers. However, critical minerals are a longer-term concern. The US remains heavily dependent on foreign supply chains, particularly from China, for many of these materials.

This makes Greenland attractive as a potential future partner rather than an immediate resource solution.

Why scepticism exists

Despite official explanations, scepticism persists, and not without reason.

In recent years, the United States has taken highly visible actions elsewhere that involved control over oil production and transport. These actions have reinforced a long-standing public perception that resource interests sometimes sit beneath security justifications.

The Iraq War remains a powerful reference point. Although the official rationale focused on weapons and security threats, the protection and control of oil fields became a defining feature of the conflict in the public imagination. That perception continues to shape how many people interpret US foreign policy today.

More recently, actions involving sanctions, tanker seizures, and control of oil revenues in other regions have revived these concerns. When military or economic pressure coincides with resource-rich territories, scepticism follows.

Against this backdrop, even legitimate security interests can be viewed through a lens of historical mistrust.

Greenland is not Iraq, but history shapes perception

Greenland differs significantly from past conflict zones. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. The United States does not dispute Danish sovereignty and has repeatedly stated that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people.

US engagement in Greenland has focused on diplomacy, scientific cooperation, and defence partnerships rather than intervention. There has been no military conflict, no occupation, and no attempt to forcibly extract resources.

However, history matters. Public opinion is shaped not only by current actions but by patterns over time. When people see strategic interest combined with resource potential, they naturally draw comparisons.

Denmark’s role as a stabilising factor

Denmark plays a crucial role in shaping how Greenland is engaged internationally. As the sovereign state responsible for defence and foreign policy, Denmark ensures that US involvement occurs within established legal and diplomatic frameworks.

This partnership reduces the likelihood of unilateral action and helps keep Greenland’s development aligned with environmental standards and local governance.

The broader reality

Greenland’s importance to the United States is real, and it is primarily rooted in geography and defence. Resource speculation exists, but it is not the driving force behind current policy.

At the same time, scepticism is understandable. History has taught many people to question official narratives when strategic interests and natural resources overlap.

The truth lies in the tension between these two realities. Greenland matters because of where it is, what it enables, and what it may one day provide. How it is treated will determine whether it becomes a model of cooperation or another chapter in a long story of mistrust.

Greenland is not a prize to be taken, but a partner to be engaged. Whether that distinction holds in the long term will depend not just on policy statements, but on actions.

In a world shaped by climate change, great power competition, and historical memory, even legitimate interests must contend with the weight of the past.

Current Most Read

Why Netflix Is Circling Warner Bros, and How a Century-Old Studio Reached This Point

What Christmas 2025 Revealed About the Future of Consoles

How social media can affect users’ mental health

ITK Magazine
Jul 31, 2024
4 min read

There’s no doubt that the internet houses its fair share of trolls and keyboard warriors—people who spout derogatory, insulting, and sometimes threatening comments to anyone they come across, safe in the knowledge that they won’t suffer any consequences.

The recent prosecution of a Singapore national will hopefully serve as a deterrent in some small part, showing that you can be found and held accountable for the words you type, if they in some way break our laws. In my opinion, this is long overdue, and more should be done to eke out these culprits, whether they’re abusing a Premiership footballer or Jackie from the next street.

Why is there so much nastiness online, when 97.5% of trolls (possibly more) wouldn’t have the nerve to say the same to a person’s face?

A light-hearted post can be shot down in flames instantly, just because someone got out of bed the wrong side. It’s like we’ve forgotten that people can have an opposing opinion and still be a good person. It’s healthy to debate different viewpoints…it doesn’t make the other person akin to an axe-murderer just because they may not agree with you. There’s little wonder that social media users, famous or not, consciously avoid their favourite platforms for a day or two every now and again, for the sake of their mental health.

Then there’s how much some people seek validation from social media. From getting up to going to bed, they post pictures of their outfit, their commute, their lunch, their face (several times over), the day’s destination…in fact, every detail of their 24-hours. Maybe I’m just showing my age, but I just don’t get it. Who cares what you’ve eaten for dinner? Do you think you’re the only one to have had a BLT sandwich that day?

How are you really written on the side of a building

It doesn’t come across as living a life everyone else can only aspire to enjoy, it comes across as someone desperate to show that he/she has got a life. But, if they truly had one, and they were fully engaged with it, they wouldn’t have the time or inclination to stop what they’re doing and take shots from hundreds of angles (that’s before the filter-adding, of course). I find this lifestyle disturbing. It says to me that social media has impacted that person’s mental health. How can it not have, when they’re more concerned with the people they know digitally than those in front of them at that very moment? To disengage from their food, their commute, the outing they’re enjoying, to take pictures for the envy of others is not healthy, it’s really not. It’s like a house of cards, the building of a life that is only simulated rather than one that’s lived.

Largely a female issue, social media can also highlight a person’s physical flaws. With so many filters and enhancements to apply at the push of a button, prolific posters can receive flak from their ‘followers’ when an unabridged photo pops up from someone else’s lens and they look just like the rest of us. We can’t hide our imperfections in real life, so why do some people feel the need to perfect themselves for social media? It’s not that I don’t get that people would want to change aspects of their appearance—without a doubt, if I won the lottery, I’d get all sorts of things ‘fixed’ about myself, but there’s no point me Photoshopping these issues online only for someone to meet me in real life and think, ‘Who the hell is that? No wonder she uses filters, look at the state of her!’ I’d just be setting myself up for a fall. Until I can (if ever) physically change those things about me I don’t like, there’s no point altering them in the virtual one. I’m not a SIMS character.

Becoming hung up on the number of likes garnered is yet another waste of time. Who cares if the friend of a friend liked your post, or someone you sat next to during your school days. Unless you see these people on a regular basis and they’re part of your inner circle, does it really matter if they click the ‘like’ button or not? And they’re people you may loosely know. Why would a like from a stranger mean any more than this?

Finally…

I know I sound disparaging to the poor souls whose lives are entrenched in their social media activity. Poor self-esteem can easily spiral, and once this false reality has you in its grip, it takes a lot to rise above it and cut it out of your consciousness. I do appreciate that; I just wish people didn’t fall for it in the first place.

It’s also a generational thing. I wasn’t brought up with the internet, it appeared in my adulthood. I know how great life can be on the user’s side of the screen, so it’s easier for me to ignore the virtual world for everything else I enjoy. For those who spend as much time on the net as they do in real life, because that’s all they’ve ever known, it’s bound to be different.

I want to grab these people who live their life through social media and show how little it actually matters, but I can’t. They need to learn that lesson for themselves—which they will, one day.