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 Perils of Corporate Domination in AI: Safeguarding Trust and Integrity

Paul Francis
Apr 22, 2024
3 min read

A concept of a AI robot that has a corporate sponsor — AI Image generated by Leonardo AI

In the burgeoning landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), the influence wielded by corporate entities demands profound scrutiny. As the integration of AI permeates various facets of our lives, the prospect of corporate control poses significant dangers that cannot be overlooked. Herein lies a discourse on the perils associated with ceding dominion over AI to large corporations, emphasizing the imperative need for safeguarding trust and integrity.

A Hypothetical Illustration: The Dangers Unveiled

Imagine an AI chat system discreetly sponsored by a prominent corporation without user disclosure. In this hypothetical scenario, the AI's responses are meticulously crafted to favour the sponsor's products or services, irrespective of their relevance or superiority. Users, oblivious to the underlying bias, unwittingly rely on these recommendations, thereby falling prey to corporate manipulation. This surreptitious influence undermines the autonomy of users and erodes trust in AI technology, highlighting the grave consequences of unchecked corporate control.

Ethical Erosion through Undisclosed Sponsorship

At the forefront of concern lies the clandestine manipulation of AI systems through undisclosed sponsorships. Large corporations, driven by profit motives, may seek to obscure their vested interests by covertly sponsoring AI platforms. In such instances, the AI's responses could be subtly engineered to favor the sponsor's products or services, eroding the ethical fabric of information dissemination. The absence of transparency leaves users vulnerable to biased recommendations, impeding their ability to make informed choices.

Propagation of Biased Narratives

The proliferation of biased narratives constitutes another formidable hazard stemming from corporate control over AI. In scenarios where AI algorithms are influenced or programmed by corporate entities, the dissemination of biased information becomes inevitable. Users, relying on AI-driven insights, may unwittingly internalize and propagate these biased narratives, thus perpetuating misinformation and exacerbating societal divisions. The unchecked propagation of biased narratives poses a dire threat to the integrity of public discourse and democratic principles.

Erosion of Consumer Autonomy

The erosion of consumer autonomy emerges as a dire consequence of corporate dominance in AI. By exerting undue influence over AI-driven recommendations and decision-making processes, large corporations infringe upon the autonomy of consumers. Users, misled by biased recommendations, may find their choices constrained and their interests subjugated to the profit-driven agendas of corporate entities. This erosion of consumer autonomy undermines the foundational principles of free market dynamics and fosters a climate of dependency and exploitation.

Deterioration of Trust in AI Technology

Central to the peril of corporate control in AI is the deterioration of trust in AI technology itself. The surreptitious manipulation of AI systems by corporate interests undermines the credibility and integrity of AI-driven solutions. Users, disillusioned by the prevalence of biased recommendations and undisclosed sponsorships, become increasingly wary of relying on AI for decision-making purposes. The erosion of trust in AI technology engenders scepticism and apprehension, hindering its widespread adoption and impeding societal progress.

Imperative for Transparent Governance and Ethical Standards

In confronting the multifaceted dangers posed by corporate domination in AI, the imperative for transparent governance and ethical standards cannot be overstated. Regulatory frameworks must be established to enforce transparency in AI sponsorship and mitigate the influence of corporate interests. Furthermore, developers and stakeholders must adhere to stringent ethical guidelines to ensure the integrity and impartiality of AI-driven systems. Only through concerted efforts to safeguard trust and integrity can we navigate the perilous terrain of corporate control in AI and realize the transformative potential of this burgeoning technology.

The dangers of allowing large corporations to wield unchecked dominion over AI are manifold and far-reaching. From ethical erosion and biased narratives to the erosion of consumer autonomy and trust, the ramifications of corporate control are profound and multifaceted. By advocating for transparent governance and ethical standards, we can mitigate these perils and foster an AI ecosystem characterized by integrity, trust, and societal benefit. Let us heed this clarion call and embark upon a path towards a future where AI serves as a beacon of progress, emancipated from the shackles of corporate hegemony.