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

What Happens to Your Data When You Die?

Paul Francis
Jul 22, 2025
4 min read

We spend years building our online lives. But what happens to all that data when we die?

From photo albums stored in the cloud to emails, passwords and social media profiles, our digital presence often continues long after we’ve gone. While most of us make plans for our possessions and property, few consider what should happen to our online accounts.

And yet, in an age where identity is as much virtual as it is physical, the question is becoming harder to ignore.

Digital woman with glowing blue lines on her face, set against a blurred background. The mood is futuristic and serene.

A digital footprint that doesn't fade

According to a 2023 report by NordPass, the average internet user now has over 100 online accounts. These include everything from banking apps and cloud storage to dating profiles, shopping sites, and social media platforms.

Many of these accounts hold personal information, private conversations, or payment details. In some cases, they contain cherished memories, such as photos, voice notes or videos. But once someone dies, accessing these accounts can be far from straightforward.

In many cases, family members find themselves locked out, unsure of what data is stored, how to retrieve it, or whether they are even legally allowed to.

What the big platforms say

Some tech companies have introduced tools to help users manage their digital legacy.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, allows users to nominate a "legacy contact". This is someone who can look after a memorialised profile, add tribute posts and update the cover photo. However, they cannot log in as the user or read private messages. If no legacy contact is set, family members can request the account be deleted or turned into a memorial page, but they will need to provide proof of death.

Colorful fabric patches with various logos and symbols, with the word "Google" prominently featured in multicolored letters.

Google offers an “Inactive Account Manager”, which lets users choose what happens if they stop using their account for a set period of time. They can select up to ten trusted contacts who will be notified, and decide whether their emails, documents and photos are shared or deleted.

Apple, meanwhile, introduced a Digital Legacy feature in iOS 15.2, which allows people to designate up to five individuals who can access their iCloud data after death. However, they will still need a copy of the death certificate and an access key to unlock the account.

Not all platforms offer such options. For smaller services, or accounts that are not covered by legacy tools, the process can be time-consuming and inconsistent.

What the law says

In the UK, digital assets are not yet clearly defined in law. According to the Law Society, there is no legal requirement to include digital possessions in a will, but doing so is strongly advised.

Some items, such as cryptocurrency wallets or digital art, are considered property and can be passed on. Others, like email accounts or social media profiles, are often treated as licences that expire on death. This can make it harder for families to retrieve content or gain access.

Different companies also have different terms of service. In some cases, accounts are considered non-transferable. In others, they can be managed by an executor if proper documentation is provided.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) recommends that people plan ahead and consider how their personal data will be handled in the event of death. But there is currently no single UK law that governs digital inheritance, and calls for reform are growing.

Enter the digital will

To avoid confusion, experts are increasingly advising people to create a digital will. This can be a standalone document or part of a traditional will, and should include a list of key accounts, where to find them, and who should have access.

Password managers like LastPass and 1Password offer emergency access features that allow trusted contacts to retrieve information if needed. It is also possible to store login details securely with a solicitor or notary.

“Leaving behind an up-to-date digital will can save loved ones a great deal of stress,” says Nicola Plant, a private client solicitor at Thomson Snell & Passmore. “It ensures that your wishes are clear and your accounts are dealt with appropriately.”

Digital wills are especially important for business owners, influencers, and people who hold assets online. However, they are becoming more common among the general public, particularly among those who store family photos, creative work or important correspondence in the cloud.

Ethical dilemmas

Beyond the legal and practical challenges, there are also ethical questions to consider.

Should companies be allowed to use someone’s data for marketing purposes after they die? Should AI chatbots be trained on personal messages or voice recordings? And who gets the final say over how someone is remembered online?

A wooden gavel on a table beside a smartphone symbolizes technology and law. The setting is simple, with a focus on the objects.

In 2020, Microsoft filed a patent for technology that could create a chatbot based on a person’s digital history. Although it was never released, it sparked debate over whether we are heading towards digital reincarnation.

For some, the idea of a digital memorial is comforting. For others, it raises concerns about consent, privacy and the risk of exploitation.

What you can do now

Preparing for your digital afterlife does not have to be complicated. Experts recommend the following steps:

Keep a secure list of your major accounts and passwords, and store it safely.
Use built-in legacy features on platforms like Facebook, Google and Apple.
Name a digital executor in your will, if possible.
Speak to your family or solicitor about your wishes.

It might not be a conversation many of us are keen to have, but as our lives become increasingly digital, planning ahead is one way to make life easier for those we leave behind.

After all, your digital footprint could become part of your legacy.

Whether you want to be remembered through a carefully managed memorial page or prefer to vanish into the data void, the decision is best made while you’re still around to make it.