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

Worker Safety Under Scrutiny: What U.S. Employment Laws Can Learn from the UK

Paul Francis
Oct 15, 2024
3 min read

Hurricane Helene, one of the most destructive storms in recent years, swept through the southern U.S., bringing catastrophic flooding and devastation. Tennessee was particularly hard hit, where the disaster took a tragic turn at Impact Plastics, a manufacturing plant in Erwin. Reports and lawsuits allege that some workers were allegedly forced to remain at the plant as floodwaters rose, leading to several deaths. This case has raised questions about workplace safety laws in the U.S. compared to the UK, especially in emergencies.

The Impact Plastics Case: A U.S. Employment Tragedy

During the peak of Hurricane Helene, employees at Impact Plastics allege they were ordered to stay at work despite the worsening flood conditions. Survivors and families of the victims, such as Johnny Peterson and Bertha Mendoza, have filed wrongful death lawsuits against the company, accusing them of negligence in failing to evacuate workers on time. These families claim that management prioritized production over safety, a charge now under investigation by state authorities.

In the U.S., this tragedy has highlighted the limitations of at-will employment and the potential for employers to exploit the system. Under at-will employment, companies can dismiss employees for any reason—or no reason at all—without notice. This flexibility, however, does not absolve employers from following Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, which require them to provide a safe working environment. If it is proven that Impact Plastics ignored these standards, the lawsuits could result in significant financial penalties and legal repercussions for the company.

U.S. Employment Law: At-Will Employment and Safety Regulations

While at-will employment gives U.S. companies the right to terminate employees freely, it comes with legal responsibilities to ensure worker safety. OSHA mandates that employers must prevent hazards and protect employees from danger, particularly during emergencies like natural disasters. However, as seen in the case of Impact Plastics, where workers were allegedly forced to stay in a dangerous environment, the law can sometimes fall short of protecting workers from extreme situations.

The lawsuits now facing Impact Plastics claim that management's failure to act and protect its employees resulted in preventable deaths. If OSHA finds that the company violated its safety protocols, Impact Plastics may face severe penalties beyond the civil lawsuits filed by the victims' families.

UK Employment Law: A Stronger Safety Net for Workers

In contrast, UK employment law offers far stronger protections for workers, especially regarding job security and workplace safety. The UK does not have an equivalent to at-will employment. Instead, employees are hired under permanent or fixed-term contracts and are protected from arbitrary dismissal by laws that require a formal and justified process for firing workers.

One of the UK's central protections is the right against unfair dismissal, provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996. Workers cannot be dismissed without good cause, particularly after two years of service, and employers must follow a defined procedure before terminating an employee. These protections would prevent a UK employer from arbitrarily terminating workers or requiring them to work under unsafe conditions without significant legal consequences.

The UK also has stringent workplace safety regulations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which places a legal obligation on employers to ensure the safety of their employees. Had a similar incident occurred in the UK, where a company allegedly forced workers to stay in dangerous conditions, it would face immediate investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). UK law requires employers to conduct thorough risk assessments and provide safe evacuation plans in emergencies.

The Evolution of UK Employment Law

UK employment law has evolved over centuries, shaped by labour movements, industrialization, and societal shifts toward human rights. Early labour protections emerged during the Industrial Revolution when unsafe working conditions in factories sparked the need for regulation. The Factories Act 1833 was one of the earliest laws aimed at improving workplace safety.

The labour movement grew through the 20th century, culminating in stronger worker protections, such as the Employment Protection Act of 1975, which introduced key rights like redundancy payments, notice periods, and protections against unfair dismissal. These laws were further refined with the Employment Rights Act of 1996, creating a modern framework that emphasizes both job security and worker safety.

Learning from the Tragedy

The Impact Plastics case underscores the importance of worker safety and the potential dangers of unchecked employer authority in the U.S., especially in high-risk situations like natural disasters. While at-will employment offers flexibility, it can leave workers vulnerable if employers do not prioritize safety.

In contrast, the UK's employment laws, built through years of labour activism and government reform, offer a far stronger safety net. The UK's emphasis on fair dismissal procedures and strict health and safety regulations ensures that workers are better protected in emergencies. As the lawsuits against Impact Plastics proceed, the case may spark discussions about the need for stronger employment laws in the U.S., particularly in times of crisis.