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

Celebrities’ Dirty Little Secret: How Hollywood’s Elite Are Embracing Bad Hygiene to Stay ‘Above’ the Rest of Us

Connor Banks
Aug 28, 2024
3 min read

In an era where the rich and famous have the means to indulge in every luxury imaginable, you’d expect impeccable grooming to be a given. But in a strange twist, it seems that some of Hollywood's elite are proudly flaunting their disdain for basic hygiene as if it's the latest trend. Is this a misguided attempt to prove they're "better" than the rest of us? Or have the rich become so out of touch with reality that they're now using bad hygiene as a badge of honour?

An AI image of a dirty celebrity on the Red Carpet

Take, for example, the revelations from actors like Jake Gyllenhaal and Ashton Kutcher, who have openly confessed that they don’t see the need to shower regularly. Gyllenhaal, the brooding star of countless blockbusters, even declared that bathing is "less necessary," suggesting that perhaps we should all follow his lead in abandoning soap and water. His statements, coupled with Kutcher and Mila Kunis's assertion that they only bathe their children when "you can see the dirt on them," have left the public scratching their heads—and holding their noses.

But the list doesn't stop there. Megan Fox, casually admits to forgetting to flush the toilet. Yes, you read that right—Fox, who could easily afford a team of butlers, prefers to let her waste linger. And then there's Leonardo DiCaprio, who, in a supposed effort to save the planet, showers only a couple of times a week. His decision to ditch deodorant entirely is yet another example of how these stars seem to believe their body odour is somehow more eco-friendly than the rest of us mere mortals.

What’s behind this trend of intentional grubbiness? Some celebrities claim it’s an environmental statement—an effort to reduce water usage or avoid harmful chemicals. Gwyneth Paltrow, ever the wellness guru, has long warned of the supposed dangers of deodorant, choosing to go au naturel despite the clear consequences for those around her. But let’s be real—while the rest of society is concerned with staying fresh and clean, these stars appear to be flaunting their ability to ignore basic social norms, as if to say, "We’re above such mundane concerns."

This isn’t just a case of celebrities being quirky; it’s a worrying sign of how out of touch they’ve become. In a world where most people are concerned with their next paycheck, housing, or healthcare, the rich and famous are making headlines for their choice to avoid a shower. It’s almost as if they’re daring us to criticise them, knowing full well that their fame and fortune place them beyond reproach.

A cartoon of a Dirty Celebrity on the Red Carpet, AI illustration

Even more concerning is the way this behaviour is being normalised. With stars like Cameron Diaz admitting to wearing the same clothes for days and not using deodorant, and stars like Zac Efron opting for baby wipes instead of actual showers, the message is clear: hygiene is for the masses, not for the elite. What’s next? Are we to expect red carpets where the stars reek of sweat, all in the name of "staying natural"?

It’s time to call this trend what it is: a disturbing sign that Hollywood’s elite are becoming more disconnected from the real world. While the rest of us live in a reality where cleanliness is a basic expectation, these stars are trying to convince us that their lack of hygiene is somehow enlightened or superior. But at the end of the day, it’s nothing more than a dirty little secret that they’re trying to sell as sophistication.

Is this really the future of Hollywood? If so, it might be time for the rest of us to take a step back and ask: who’s really setting the trends here, and why are we following them? After all, there’s nothing glamorous about being smelly—no matter how many millions you have in the bank.