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

WWE Backlash 2025 Review

Connor Banks
May 13, 2025
3 min read

Rating: 7.5/10 – A strong post-Mania outing with memorable moments and well-executed storytelling

Torn paper design on a red background reveals bold text: "BACKLASH ST. LOUIS" in metallic and red letters, creating a dynamic effect. — Copyright WWE

WWE Backlash 2025 came live from the Enterprise Centre in St. Louis, Missouri, and it delivered a night full of solid wrestling, intriguing developments, and a few genuine surprises. While not every bout was a show-stealer, the overall presentation and narrative progression made for an enjoyable evening. Let’s break it down in match card order.

United States Championship Fatal 4-Way: Jacob Fatu (c) vs. Damian Priest vs. Drew McIntyre vs. LA Knight

The perfect choice to open the show - fast-paced, high-energy, and dripping with tension. Each competitor brought something unique: Drew’s brute force, Priest’s unpredictability, LA Knight’s charisma, and Fatu’s raw dominance. This match didn’t just entertain - it moved storylines forward beautifully.

The real headline was the surprise debut of Jeff Cobb, who intervened to help Fatu retain his title, seemingly under orders from Solo Sikoa. What made the moment particularly compelling was Fatu’s visible confusion—he clearly hadn’t been clued in on the plan, and it sets up fascinating internal tension within this Bloodline 2.0 which was absolutely needed particularly with the injuries to Tama Tonga and Tonga Loa. A thrilling way to start the night and a great bit of storytelling.

Women’s Intercontinental Championship: Lyra Valkyria (c) vs. Becky Lynch

Match of the night, no question. This was the moment Lyra Valkyria needed, and she delivered in spades. Becky was superb in the veteran role, pushing Lyra to her limits, while Lyra finally got to showcase her full potential on a major stage.

The in-ring storytelling was layered and emotionally charged, with well-timed false finishes and a clear narrative arc of the underdog stepping up. This didn’t just get Lyra over with the fans - it got her over with me. A star-making performance, and a brilliant match from start to finish.

Intercontinental Championship: “Dirty” Dominik Mysterio (c) vs. Penta

This was good, but not their best. The action was crisp and engaging, and both men put in a solid shift, but it didn’t quite match the level of their previous clash on RAW, which still stands as their strongest effort to date.

Still, it served its purpose in advancing the ongoing story. JD McDonagh’s presence added tension, and Dom retained in typical fashion, keeping his heel momentum rolling. Not a show-stealer, but a decent middle-of-the-card contest.

Gunther vs. Pat McAfee

This turned out far better than I anticipated. I expected a semi-competitive match that would risk diluting Gunther’s aura, but instead, we got a masterclass squash. Gunther dominated, as he should, but Pat McAfee played his part to perfection and even got a few hope spots, even if they were quickly put back down again by the Ring General.

There was just enough drama to give fans a sliver of hope, without ever truly threatening Gunther’s dominance. It protected both men—Gunther remained a beast, and McAfee left with his credibility intact thanks to his resilience and the crowd’s support. A brilliant bit of booking.

Main Event – Undisputed WWE Championship: John Cena (c) vs. Randy Orton

This was a classic - everything a final chapter between two legends should be. Cena and Orton crafted a bout steeped in nostalgia, packed with callbacks to their many battles over the years. The pacing was deliberate, the crowd was hot, and every near-fall had weight.

Orton, performing in his hometown, gave it everything. Cena matched him step for step. The late interference from R-Truth was a fun call back to the previous Smackdown's where Truth had said he wanted to help his childhood hero, and most importantly,y didn’t take anything away from this spectacle.

If this really was their last encounter, it was a fitting and emotional conclusion to one of WWE’s greatest rivalries.

Backlash 2025 may not be remembered as an all-time classic, but it absolutely delivered where it needed to. It elevated new stars, progressed key storylines, and gave fans plenty to talk about. With standout performances from Lyra Valkyria, the surprise debut of Jeff Cobb, and the powerful send-off for Cena vs. Orton, it was a well-rounded and thoroughly enjoyable event.