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

From Cinema to Screen: How Release Windows Have Changed Since the 1980s

Paul Francis
Nov 13, 2024
4 min read

In the late 1980s, movie lovers in the UK would often have to wait years for their favourite films to reach their home screens. A recent nostalgic advert from ITV, one of the UK’s main terrestrial channels, highlighted this waiting game with its Christmas Day 1988 premiere of The Empire Strikes Back, the second instalment of Star Wars, originally released in cinemas in 1980. ITV's showing was the first time UK audiences could watch the film on free-to-air television—a staggering seven years after its theatrical debut. Today, however, we live in an era where movies seem to hit streaming services almost as soon as they leave cinemas. Let's look at how the journey from cinema release to home viewing has changed over the decades.

The 1980s Waiting Game: From Theaters to TV

In the 1980s, there were a few different paths a film would take after leaving the cinema. After a theatrical run, some films might see a VHS release, but even that could take a year or more. Then, after an extended delay, they might make it onto a paid TV network, such as Sky in the UK. But for most viewers who didn’t have access to pay TV, the real prize was the “terrestrial premiere” on channels like ITV or BBC One, which often took years to arrive. Other examples from this era include:

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): It premiered in UK cinemas in 1981, but didn’t reach ITV screens until 1987.
Back to the Future (1985): Released in cinemas in 1985, but UK audiences had to wait until December 1990 for its terrestrial premiere on ITV.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982): This iconic film hit cinemas in 1982 and didn’t appear on terrestrial TV until 1988 on BBC One.

This long delay was partially due to the licensing models and limited broadcasting options at the time. With fewer channels and the value of these television premieres sky-high, networks could demand—and viewers expected—a long wait for big films.

The 1990s and Early 2000s: Home Video Revolution and Cable TV

The 1990s brought a massive change with the rise of home video and the popularity of VHS rentals. This era shortened the wait for home viewing but still kept a long gap before films hit terrestrial TV. Pay-per-view and cable channels like Sky Movies (launched in the UK in 1989) began to narrow the gap, bringing films to television sooner but still long after cinema releases.

Throughout the 90s, blockbuster films like Jurassic Park (1993) and Independence Day (1996) saw quicker turnarounds to VHS and cable TV. Still, these films would typically reach terrestrial television about four years after their theatrical release. In the early 2000s, DVDs brought better accessibility and shortened the home-viewing window even more, but big premieres on free-to-air television were still highly anticipated and usually years in the making.

Today’s Fast-Tracked Releases: The Rise of Streaming

By the 2010s, the emergence of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and later Disney+ and HBO Max, fundamentally shifted the landscape. Rather than waiting years to see a hit movie on their screens, viewers could see major films within a few months of their theatrical releases. This shift was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led many studios to release films directly on streaming platforms either simultaneously with or shortly after cinema releases.

For example:

Black Widow (2021): Released in cinemas in July 2021, it premiered on Disney+ the same day for an additional fee.
Dune (2021): Released in October 2021 in cinemas, it became available on HBO Max within a month for streaming subscribers.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022): Released in cinemas in December 2022, it was available for purchase online by March 2023, only three months after its release.

With this quick turnaround, viewers now expect movies to arrive on streaming within months. Terrestrial TV premieres are almost an afterthought, and viewers rarely wait years for a film to become accessible at home.

Are We Taking This Content for Granted?

In the 1980s and 90s, the excitement around waiting years for a beloved film to air on TV created a shared sense of anticipation and made each premiere a significant cultural event. Now, with nearly instant access, movies have become disposable. The unique experience of “the wait” has all but vanished. While we may appreciate the convenience, it’s worth considering that this immediacy may lessen the lasting impact that films once had.

This fast-track approach has also put pressure on the cinema industry. While box office numbers were recovering from pandemic shutdowns, more people are choosing to wait for films to hit streaming rather than paying for a cinema ticket. The shift recalls a debate that began in the 1950s when television was seen as a potential “cinema killer.” Each technological advancement—from TV to VHS to streaming—has sparked concerns about the survival of the cinema experience. Yet, for now, cinema still endures, albeit with increasing challenges.

The Changing Landscape of Film Consumption

Today, we live in an age of instant gratification where movies are accessible at the click of a button. Compared to the 1980s, when the wait for home viewing spanned years, modern viewers have an embarrassment of riches. While we may take this convenience for granted, it’s worth reflecting on how the excitement of movie premieres, both in cinemas and on TV, has diminished as a result.

As streaming services continue to shrink release windows, cinemas are adapting to an uncertain future. Whether this trend will ultimately lead to the “death of cinema” remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the journey from the big screen to our living rooms has never been quicker, and the nostalgic value of waiting may soon be a thing of the past.

Did You Know? Fun Factoids

TV Was Cinema’s First Rival: The emergence of television in the 1950s sparked the first major concern about the survival of cinemas, with predictions that TV would keep people at home and reduce cinema attendance.
VHS and DVD Changed the Game: Before streaming, home video shortened the wait for movies at home, but most films still took at least six months to hit VHS shelves.
Streaming Today: Many studios now make films available on streaming within 90 days of theatrical release, compared to the 3-7 year delay common in the 80s.

This shift in film access means we now see films as content rather than events, changing how we value and interact with cinema culture itself.