For most of modern history, Greenland barely registered in global politics. It was widely seen as a distant, ice-covered territory with little influence beyond its immediate region. That has changed quickly. Today, the world’s largest island has become a focal point for questions about security, trade routes, and access to the Arctic.
For the United States, Washington treats Greenland as a strategic necessity rather than a diplomatic provocation. For the European Union, it has become a case study in missed opportunities and slow decision-making.
From a military standpoint, Greenland plays a key role in the defense of North America. The island lies along the shortest route between Russia and the United States. Any long-range missile or bomber launched from Eurasia toward U.S. territory would cross the Arctic and pass over Greenland.
For this reason, the United States has maintained a permanent military presence there since the Cold War. The Pituffik base, formerly known as Thule, hosts early-warning systems, missile-detection radars, and space-surveillance capabilities linked to U.S. and NATO early-warning networks. As tensions between major powers rise, missile defense and space monitoring have become central to modern security planning.
Greenland also sits astride a key North Atlantic corridor between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom, an area long used to track Russian submarine movements from the Arctic into the Atlantic.
Beyond military considerations, geography itself is one of Greenland’s main strategic assets. The retreat of Arctic ice is making new sea routes viable, at least during parts of the year. The Northwest Passage and potential transpolar routes shorten distances between Asia, Europe, and North America.
Greenland lies along these emerging corridors. Ports, airfields, surveillance infrastructure, and search-and-rescue capabilities on the island will influence access and security in the Arctic. From Washington’s perspective, a greater presence by rival powers such as Russia or China would be viewed as a serious strategic risk.
Critical minerals and industrial power
Security is increasingly tied to industrial capacity. Greenland holds large, largely undeveloped reserves of rare earth elements, uranium, and other critical minerals used in weapons systems, electronics, aerospace, and advanced technologies.
China’s dominance over global supply chains for many of these materials is widely seen in Washington as a vulnerability. U.S. interest in Greenlandic mining projects is therefore long-term rather than short-term, aimed at diversifying supply sources, securing Western access to key materials, and reducing reliance on rival powers.
The United States already has financial and strategic tools in place to support mining and infrastructure development on the island. The stated objective is to ensure these resources contribute to Western industrial supply chains.
Europe’s delay
Despite frequent talk of “strategic autonomy,” the European Union has struggled to translate its ambitions into action in Greenland. Although the island remains formally linked to Denmark, Brussels has moved slowly, constrained by internal divisions. Environmental restrictions, regulatory delays, and political caution have limited European engagement in mining, infrastructure, and security projects.
As a result, Europe risks watching from the sidelines as the United States secures long-term access to Greenland’s resources and strengthens its Arctic position. In a fast-moving strategic environment, the EU has often responded with procedures and debate rather than concrete commitments.
Many of Greenland’s resources are precisely those Europe says it needs for its own industrial and technological base. Yet instead of developing them with a clear long-term approach, European decision-making has been slowed by political constraints.
For Europe, Greenland highlights unresolved questions about Arctic policy and long-term strategic priorities. As ice retreats, shipping routes open, and competition in the High North increases, influence is shifting quickly. The issue is no longer whether Greenland matters, but how different actors choose to engage with its future.
For now, European countries appear only modestly committed to Greenland’s defense, and Denmark—despite public statements of support from some leaders—has so far deferred to U.S. leadership on Arctic security.
