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

Aston Martin's City Car Chronicles: Decoding the Unlikely Tale of the Cygnet

Gregory Devine
Dec 6, 2023
4 min read

When you think of Aston Martin you think of iconic British sports cars. Cars that are so good even James Bond had one, so why did the company release a small city car called the Cygnet?

Back in 2009, the European Union were creating new legislation to reduce CO2 emissions. The new rules meant companies had to comply with an average CO2 emissions goal across the entire range. For my companies this was fine but those who only made sports cars would find this more of a challenge. Luckily for a lot of sports car companies, they were owned by a sister company that would bring this average down. Lamborghini for example is owned by the VW group so they didn’t have to worry. Aston Martin on the other hand wasn’t owned by a company that produced your average daily commuter.

At first, Aston Martin tried to push back against the European Union’s new legislation. They believed the EU should be judging a car based on the amount of CO2 it emits over its entire life. Aston Martins on average were only driven 6000 miles per year, significantly less than other cars, meaning it would add less toxins to the environment. The EU didn’t agree and the legislation was here to stay. Aston Martin had two options, become a part of a larger motor group so the average CO2 emissions from the entire range of the manufacturer could be applied or add a car to their range that had very low emissions. Not wanting to “sell out”, Aston Martin chose the latter and would create a new car to bring their range’s average emissions down.

Except they didn’t create a “new” car. Instead, they had an ingenious plan. They would take a highly efficient, low-emissions car from another manufacturer and modify it for themselves. This happens all over the automotive market. Cars will be sold under different badge names to suit a certain market. All Aston Martin needed was a friendly company willing to strike a deal, one that wasn’t competing in the same market space as themselves.

Toyota were just announcing their new city car, the iQ. This was a tiny city car that was easy to park and, crucially, low on emissions. For size reference think of anything like a Fiat 500 or VW Up! . The iQ looked like the perfect option for Aston Martin so the companies got together and struck a deal. Aston's design team were no longer creating a brash sports car, they were modifying an upmarket Toyota iQ. It would be called the Cygnet, named after a baby swan about the “swan doors” found on Aston Martins.

The Cygnet would be marketed as a “tender for your yacht”. They imagined most owners would be the car to take them from their Mayfair residence to their garage where they’d swap the Cygnet for a much more powerful Aston Martin to continue the rest of their journey. That’s a pretty small market to target but the point of the car was to bring those average CO2 emissions down. At first, you had to already be an Aston Martin customer just to order the car.

The outside of the car unsurprisingly looked like a Toyota iQ. The front end was slightly redesigned to feature the iconic Aston Martin grille, whilst at the rear new Aston Martin styled lights were added alongside a small spoiler. The door handles would be replaced by more upmarket ones that sat flush with the car’s body. This was not only more aesthetically pleasing but also made the car more aerodynamic. Even with these changes, this didn’t feel like an Aston Martin.

In regards to the interior, the designers tried their best to make this car feel like a proper Aston. There was plenty of leather placed all over the cabin where cheap plastic would be on the Toyota iQ but things like the buttons and switches were still obviously that of the Toyota.

Production would begin in 2010. The car would start its life in Toyota’s factory in Japan before being sent over to Aston Martins factory in the UK. A basic white or black iQ would be sent over and then stripped down so Aston Martin could apply its paint to the standards it expected. Just the paint would take 50 hours. The previously mentioned flush door handles were dropped in favour of the original ones from Toyota. Each car would take 175 hours to create as opposed to the around 10 hours Toyota would take.

All these labour hours might explain why the Cygnet was 3 times the price of the iQ at over £30,000. The market wasn’t there for the Cygnet, a luxury city car wasn’t needed. The closest competition came from the Audi A1 but this was less of a city car and more just a small one. By 2013 Aston would pull the plug on the Cygnet after only selling 800 cars. The EU legislation changed and the rise of the plug-in hybrid meant Aston Martin did not need this future icon any more.