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

The Lip King: We Need To Take Action On Unlicensed Practitioners

Toby Patrick
Oct 30, 2025
2 min read

If you are unfamiliar with the tragedy that came from the ‘Lip King’, then you will be shocked to know that this individual is just one of several cases that occur within the UK of unmonitored individuals administering injectables without having the correct medical background, training or education on the matter.

Close-up of a person getting a lip injection. A hand in blue gloves holds a syringe near the lips. Calm expression, neutral background.

The Lip King was the cause of a mother's death after an illegal injectable procedure called a ‘BBL’. In surgical matters, the BBL is an extremely dangerous procedure, which makes it no different when handling injectables, whether in the face or any other body part. While the lip king has not yet been tried for his crimes, it also raises so much concern that it’s taken for someone to lose their life for this now to be seen as a serious matter.

Why Has It Not Been Monitored?

For no reason other than the government hasn’t seen this as a serious enough offence or concern. It’s absolutely outrageous that some actions are against the law, but injecting chemicals into people's faces without any medical background isn’t one of them.

What Happens In The UK With Injectables?

As this has been unmonitored for so long, but also the ‘rules’ that have been put in place are only followed by the once who are medically registered and have nursing backgrounds.

However, some ‘practitioners’ believe they are fully qualified because they went to a course by watching someone else and training on a stranger's face. They are given a certificate from an aesthetics company that also doesn’t have any medical background. This has created a spiral of uneducated individuals who are then leaving and lying to customers that they are qualified, and potentially putting customers at risk.

Customers are none the wiser because they are trusting these people with a large following or a recommendation, or simply because they are offering injectables at an insanely low price. Overall, it’s not a well-known fact that for an individual to be fully qualified, they need to go through medical training and have a medical certificate or a nursing degree of some regard.

Because it’s not spoken about so much in the media or online, it’s getting forgotten about, but this means dangerous things are happening and have been happening for decades. Not only a couple of months ago, these practitioners have been purchasing ‘fake’ or foreign anti-wrinkle products and selling them as Botox. This fake Botox had dangerous reactions to patients' skin, and there were over 100 cases reported.

All that came of it was that practitioners needed to have a consultation with a new patient before administering the injectables. Which is ridiculous, as it’s not preventing the injector from being unqualified and administering the wrong products into people's faces.

What Of The Future?

Overall changes need to be made, and in the case of the Lip King, this might be a turning point in patient safety from backstreet cosmetic practitioners.

This means more qualified aesthetics companies, such as the likes of The Clinic Cheshire (my practitioner), won’t have to face the turmoil or pick up the pieces and damages these backstreet practitioners have done, and people will go to them in the first place for medical-grade and safe injectables.