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 Political Assassinations: Lessons from History

Paul Francis
Jul 22, 2024
4 min read

At 6:11 pm on the 13th of July, former President Donald Trump narrowly escaped an assassination attempt at a rally in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. The assailant, Thomas Matthew Crooks, failed to hit Trump but tragically killed Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old volunteer fire chief who was attending the rally. The potential ramifications of Trump's assassination are twofold, in my personal opinion: 1) It would have made him a martyr, further pushing his cause, or 2) It would have turned him into a survivor, bestowing him with even more political clout. The latter scenario might have even fuelled the far-right narrative of 'he's chosen by God.' Only time will tell as America heads to the polls.

Man in a mask pretending to be Donald Trump outside Trump tower.

Historical Precedents: Assassinations That Shaped the World

Assassination attempts, as history has shown us, rarely lead to positive outcomes. Take World War I as a glaring example—an assassination that ignited a global conflict. Over 16 million people were killed worldwide, and the war’s aftermath directly contributed to the conditions that led to World War II. Let's delve into some of the most significant political assassinations in history, examining the individuals, their lives, and the chaotic aftermaths of their deaths.

Julius Caesar: The Fall of the Roman Republic

Born in 100 BCE, Julius Caesar was a towering figure in Roman history. Known for his military prowess, he expanded the Roman Republic through a series of conquests. Caesar was charismatic, pragmatic, and ambitious, traits that made him both beloved by the masses and feared by the Senate. However, his ambition and accumulation of power also made him controversial, with some perceiving him as a potential dictator.

The Assassination

On the Ides of March, 44 BCE, Caesar was assassinated by a group of about 60 senators led by Gaius Cassius Longinus, Decimus Junius Brutus, and Marcus Junius Brutus. They believed his growing power threatened the Republic’s traditions, fearing he would become a monarch.

The Aftermath

The immediate result was chaos. Mark Antony's speech swayed public opinion against the conspirators, leading to a series of civil wars. Ultimately, this power struggle resulted in the rise of Caesar's heir, Octavian (later Augustus), and the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.

Abraham Lincoln: The Cost of Unity

Born in 1809, Abraham Lincoln rose from humble beginnings to become the 16th President of the United States. Known for his integrity and empathy, he led the country through the Civil War and worked tirelessly to abolish slavery. Despite his many virtues, Lincoln was also a polarising figure, particularly in the Southern states, where he was seen as a threat to their way of life.

The Assassination

On April 14, 1865, Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, a famous actor and Confederate sympathizer, at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. Booth believed killing Lincoln would revive the Confederate cause.

The Aftermath

Lincoln's death plunged the nation into deep mourning and left Vice President Andrew Johnson to navigate the tumultuous Reconstruction era. Johnson’s lenient policies towards the South and clashes with Radical Republicans hindered efforts to secure civil rights for former slaves, exacerbating regional tensions for decades.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand: The Spark of a Global Conflict

Franz Ferdinand, born in 1863, was the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Known for his conservative views and advocacy for military modernization, he was both a symbol of potential reform and an object of suspicion within the empire. His marriage to Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, was also controversial due to her lower rank.

The Assassination

On June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo, Bosnia, Gavrilo Princip, a member of the nationalist group Black Hand, assassinated Franz Ferdinand. The group aimed to end Austro-Hungarian rule over Bosnia and promote Slavic nationalism.

The Aftermath

The assassination set off a chain reaction, leading to World War I. Over 16 million people were killed worldwide, and the conflict caused massive destruction and reshaped the geopolitical landscape. The Treaty of Versailles and the harsh penalties imposed on Germany and other Central Powers created economic and political instability, directly contributing to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II.

Mahatma Gandhi: The Price of Peace

Mahatma Gandhi, born in 1869, was a pivotal figure in the Indian independence movement. Known for his philosophy of non-violence and simplicity, Gandhi inspired millions with his principles of truth and civil disobedience. However, his personal life was complex; his strict adherence to celibacy and asceticism often caused friction with his family.

The Assassination

On January 30, 1948, in New Delhi, Gandhi was shot by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist who opposed Gandhi’s acceptance of partition and perceived appeasement of Muslims.

The Aftermath

Gandhi’s death led to national mourning and communal riots. Prime Minister Nehru’s government intensified efforts to stabilize the country and promote secularism. However, Gandhi’s assassination underscored the deep religious divides in India.

John F. Kennedy: The Shattered Dream

John F. Kennedy, born in 1917, became a symbol of a new generation of American leadership. Charismatic and youthful, Kennedy inspired many with his vision for civil rights and his handling of international crises. However, his personal life was marred by numerous affairs and health issues, which contrasted sharply with his public image.

The Assassination

On November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine. Oswald's motives remain unclear, but his actions left an indelible mark on American history.

The Aftermath

Kennedy’s death shocked the nation and the world. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in and used the national sentiment to push forward significant civil rights legislation. However, the assassination also bred numerous conspiracy theories, fostering a lasting sense of distrust in the government.

The Futility of Political Killings

Throughout history, political assassinations have seldom achieved their intended outcomes. Instead, they often lead to greater instability, conflict, and long-term consequences that far outweigh any perceived benefits. As we reflect on these historical precedents, it becomes clear that political violence is never the answer. Constructive dialogue and democratic processes are crucial for fostering lasting change and stability.

So, as we observe the unfolding events in America from our vantage point across the pond, let us hope for a future where political disputes are settled through ballots, not bullets, and where leaders are remembered not for their violent ends but for their contributions to humanity.