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

Disney Cancels Star Wars: Acolyte—What’s Next for the Galaxy Far, Far Away?

Connor Banks
Aug 23, 2024
2 min read

On 4th June 2024 the first Episode of a brand new Star Wars TV show hit Disney+. After years and years of fans crying out for something new and away from the main story of the mainline continuity of the Skywalker Saga they finally got what they had been crammering for. A new TV show that was said 100 years before any other Star Wars media, with completely new characters and set during the High Republic of the Star Wars world, a period of time that hasn't had much expanded on it meaning Disney could do whatever they wanted to add to the lore without stepping on any toes. It seemed as though fans got what they had been asking for. Except the first episode of the Acolyte was not very well received. In fact the rest of the series wasn't received well at all to the point that disney recently have announced that the shows second season was going to be cancelled.

The final episode of Star Wars: The Acolyte had a viewership of 335 million minutes streamed, according to Nielsen's streaming charts. This was notably low compared to other Star Wars series, making it one of the least-watched finales for a Star Wars show on Disney+. For context, this figure is just 27.5% of what The Mandalorian Season 3 finale achieved and only 23.2% of the Season 2 finale that featured Luke Skywalker. With this steep decline in viewership it’s no surprise that Disney opted to cancel the show.

What does this mean for the future of Star Wars? Disney's latest attempt to carve out something fresh in the galaxy far, far away was their first real step away from the well-worn path of nostalgia bait. It's a move fans have been clamouring for, yet when it arrived, the show was met with widespread disdain online. But let's be honest—it's not as terrible as the internet would have you believe. It's just... okay. A middling effort, neither spectacular nor disastrous, but unmistakably padded—what could have been a tight three-hour story stretched thin over eight episodes, all in the name of keeping Disney+ subscribers engaged.

The real concern, however, lies in how Disney might interpret this outcome. Instead of concluding that they should avoid diluting small stories across bloated runtimes, they could very well decide that venturing into new territory is a mistake. The safer route, after all, is the proven one: stick to what sells. And unfortunately, that usually means more of the same—more nostalgia, more familiar faces, more recycled plots. Why? Because every time Disney has leaned into nostalgia, it's paid off handsomely.

Just look at The Force Awakens—a near copy of A New Hope that raked in billions. Or The Mandalorian, which has increasingly relied on nostalgia, even resurrecting a CGI Mark Hamill as young Luke Skywalker. The Ahsoka series? Another nostalgia-driven venture. All of these projects have been profitable, reinforcing the idea that sticking to the old formula is a surefire way to keep the cash flowing.

So, instead of pushing the boundaries of the Star Wars universe and exploring new, creative possibilities, Disney is likely to double down on what they know works. The result? A franchise that remains shackled to its past, replaying the same notes rather than composing something truly new.