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 Man Who Swapped Salt for Bromide After Asking ChatGPT

Paul Francis
Oct 1, 2025
3 min read

It sounds like the set-up to a surreal joke: a 60-year-old man, looking to cut down on table salt, asked an artificial intelligence for alternatives and wound up in hospital after months of dosing himself with sodium bromide. Yet that is precisely what happened in the United States, according to a medical case report that has since sparked a flurry of concern about how people use AI for health advice.

Roast chicken with vegetables on a plate beside a salt shaker on a wooden table. Warm, cozy dining room setting with soft lighting.

What Has the Online Safety Act Done So Far?

The case, published in Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases, describes how the man, worried about the health effects of sodium chloride, decided to find a replacement. Instead of speaking to his doctor or a dietitian, he turned to ChatGPT. He later told clinicians that the system suggested bromide as a substitute. He then bought it online and sprinkled it onto food for around three months.

When he eventually sought help, doctors found he was suffering from bromism, a rare form of poisoning that was more common decades ago, when bromide salts were sold as sedatives. Today, bromide compounds are not approved for human consumption in most countries.

What Are the Symptoms of Bromism?

Over time, the man developed a catalogue of troubling symptoms:

paranoia, including a belief that his neighbour was poisoning him
hallucinations
insomnia and fatigue
poor coordination and unsteady movement
skin complaints including acne and red bumps known as cherry angiomas

In blood tests, his chloride levels appeared abnormally high. In reality, bromide was interfering with the equipment — a diagnostic red herring that once led to bromism being nicknamed a “great imitator” in medicine.

How Was He Treated?

The man was admitted to hospital, where he was placed under psychiatric care due to his paranoia and hallucinations. Treatment included intravenous fluids to flush the bromide, correction of his electrolyte levels, and the use of antipsychotic medication. After three weeks, his condition improved and he was discharged.

Doctors noted that many younger clinicians had little experience with bromism, since the condition has all but disappeared from modern practice. Without his disclosure about the AI-recommended substitution, diagnosis might have been even more difficult.

Did ChatGPT Really Recommend Bromide?

The clinicians never obtained the original conversation logs, so it is impossible to prove exactly what the system said. However, when the team ran similar prompts themselves, they found that ChatGPT sometimes did list sodium bromide as a possible substitute for sodium chloride, alongside caveats such as “context matters” and without asking for medical history.

This raises awkward questions about how AI language models generate answers. They are designed to predict plausible text, not to provide safe or medically sound advice.

What Are the Lessons?

The case highlights three broader concerns:

AI is not a doctor. It may generate convincing answers, but it does not understand chemistry, biology, or risk in the way a professional does.
Guardrails are limited. While OpenAI and others build safeguards into their systems, loopholes remain, especially for niche queries.
Doctors may need to ask new questions. Just as they might ask patients about herbal remedies or over-the-counter pills, clinicians may increasingly need to ask: “Have you consulted an AI about this?”

For the man at the centre of this story, the outcome was ultimately positive, after a frightening spell in hospital, he made a recovery. But for the wider public, the case stands as a reminder: artificial intelligence can be a helpful tool, but when it comes to your health, it is no substitute for professional medical advice.