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

Will We Ever Live in a 15-Minute City?

Paul Francis
Aug 19, 2025
4 min read

The phrase “15-minute city” has been buzzing around councils, planning departments, and even protest placards in recent years. At its heart, the concept is simple. Every resident should be able to access the essentials of daily life within a 15-minute walk or cycle from their front door. Shops, schools, healthcare, parks, and workplaces would all be close at hand, reducing the need for long commutes and helping to cut down on car dependency.

People biking on a sunny city street lined with modern buildings. A tree in bloom stands in the center, creating an active, lively scene. — Concept Image generated with Leonardo AI

Supporters say it is about creating healthier, greener neighbourhoods. Critics call it unrealistic or even restrictive. But with several UK cities exploring the model, the question is becoming less about “if” and more about “how.”

How the 15-Minute City Works

The idea was popularised by Professor Carlos Moreno in Paris, where city leaders have restructured neighbourhoods to bring amenities closer to residents. It involves:

Mixed-use planning: Combining homes, workplaces, shops, and leisure in the same area.
Green corridors: Designing cities for walking and cycling as much as cars.
Decentralisation: Moving away from the idea of one city centre and instead supporting multiple local hubs.
Resilience: Ensuring neighbourhoods can function independently, from access to food to community spaces.

The aim is not to stop people from leaving their neighbourhoods but to give them the option of living more locally if they wish.

UK Cities Taking the Leap

Several councils in the UK are experimenting with 15-minute city principles, though each is approaching it differently.

Oxford

Oxford City Council became one of the first to announce trials, sparking heated debate. Their plan involves restricting car access between certain zones at peak times, combined with investment in cycling and bus routes. The idea is to encourage more local trips rather than forcing residents across town for basic needs. Critics argued it risked “trapping” people, though the council insists the model is about freedom of choice.

Bristol

Bristol has embedded 15-minute city ideas into its long-term planning strategy. Rather than creating new barriers, the city is promoting dense, walkable neighbourhoods with shops, schools, and clinics woven into residential developments. Easton and Southville are often cited as examples where people already live in near-15-minute conditions, with strong community hubs and active high streets.

Edinburgh

Edinburgh has launched what it calls a “20-minute neighbourhood” plan. The principle is the same but adapted to the city’s geography. The council aims to ensure residents can reach shops, services, green spaces, and public transport within a short walk. Pilot areas include Leith, where investment in local shopping streets and public spaces has already started.

Birmingham

Birmingham is looking at how its outer estates can be reconnected. While the city centre is thriving, many residential areas were built around car use. The council has identified neighbourhoods where small-scale facilities like health clinics and shops could be reintroduced to cut long car journeys.

London

Parts of London already function as 15-minute neighbourhoods. Areas like Hackney and Islington have thriving local high streets, schools, and parks within walking distance. However, the Greater London Authority is encouraging boroughs to develop policies that spread this model more evenly, especially in outer London where car dependency is still high.

Woman in white shirt and sunglasses rides a bike on a city street. Background shows buildings, a tree, and a van. Warm colors.

A Look Back at the Tower Block Dream

For some, the 15-minute city sounds familiar. In the 1950s and 1960s, post-war Britain embraced modernist architecture and the idea of self-contained estates. Tower blocks such as Sheffield’s Park Hill or London’s Barbican were built with shops, schools, and even pubs included. The dream was to give working-class families modern homes with everything on their doorstep.

Gray, worn-down apartment building with open windows, broken glass, and debris-filled balconies. Mood of neglect and decay.

It did not always work out. Poor maintenance, design flaws, and rising crime left many estates in decline by the 1970s and 1980s. The promise of close-knit communities gave way to isolation and poverty in some areas. For older generations, the memory of these failed experiments lingers, and there are fears that the 15-minute city could repeat some of the same mistakes.

Learning from the Past

The key difference, say modern planners, is that today’s approach is community-led rather than imposed from above. Councils are holding workshops and consultations to shape neighbourhoods alongside residents. Instead of high-rise towers, most designs focus on mixed-use low and mid-rise housing, walkable high streets, and green spaces.

There is also a greater emphasis on flexibility. The 15-minute city does not seek to lock people into their area but to give them choices. If you want to walk to the shops, you can. If you want to drive across town, you still can. The failure of the tower blocks has made modern planners more cautious about assuming they know best.

The Debate and the Future

Despite these reassurances, the concept has become politically charged. Some campaigners fear it will lead to restrictions on personal freedom. Others worry it may prioritise wealthier areas, leaving deprived communities behind once again.

What is clear is that UK cities face enormous challenges. Rising populations, climate targets, and stretched infrastructure mean that the current reliance on cars and long commutes cannot last forever. Whether labelled as 15-minute cities or simply better neighbourhood planning, councils are under pressure to make urban life more sustainable and liveable.

The ghosts of the tower block era will always haunt such debates. Yet for many communities, the dream of being able to shop, work, and socialise close to home remains as appealing as ever. The question is whether Britain can learn from its mistakes and finally turn that dream into reality.