Despite being a sparsely populated autonomous territory with harsh natural conditions, the island of Greenland has recently emerged as a new focal point for geopolitical competition. This is particularly true following the assertive statements and manoeuvres by US President Donald Trump. This development reflects a shift in the strategic focus within major powers’ calculations, presenting challenges for both the region and the broader world.
Greenland’s unique geo-strategic position
Greenland is the world’s largest island, covering an area of approximately 2.16 million square kilometres, with over 80% of its surface covered by ice. Its current population stands at around 56,000, consisting primarily of indigenous Inuit people who are sparsely distributed along the western and southern coasts.
 |
| Prime Minister of Greenland Jens-Frederik Nielsen joins a march of Greenlanders in Nuuk, 17th January 2026 (photo: AP) |
Historically, Greenland was discovered and settled by Vikings in the 10th century. By the 18th century, Denmark had officially established administrative control, making the icy island a Danish colony. Following the Second World War, alongside the decolonisation movement and the growing sentiment of self-determination, Greenland became an autonomous territory of Denmark (in 1979) after a public referendum. In 2009, the Act on Greenland Self-Government came into force, granting the island authority over areas such as justice, policing, healthcare, and natural resources. However, Denmark retains the decisive role in crucial matters of defence, security, and foreign affairs, whilst also firmly embedding Greenland into NATO’s collective security framework.
According to international researchers, integrating Greenland into NATO’s security structure paved the way for the US to include the region in its strategic calculations. During the Cold War, Greenland quickly became an exceptionally vital link in America’s nuclear deterrence and defence strategy. The establishment of Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) not only contributed to enhancing early warning capabilities for ballistic missiles, but also allowed the US to monitor the entire Arctic - Atlantic space, creating a “strategic shield” to protect the North American continent from afar. In geo-strategic terms, Greenland is centrally located between the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, commanding direct maritime routes connecting North America and Europe, whilst also controlling access corridors to the Arctic from the Atlantic. As NATO increasingly focuses on the security of its eastern and northern flanks, Greenland is viewed as an indispensable strategic foothold in the collective defence system, particularly as competition amongst major powers in the Arctic intensifies.
Furthermore, geological surveys indicate that Greenland possesses immense reserves of rare earth, estimated at around 40 million tonnes. The island also contains 25 of the 34 minerals classified by the European Union (EU) as “critical raw materials”, such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite. These minerals are core components of high-tech supply chains, from the production of electric vehicle batteries and wind turbines to radar components and precision-guided missiles. Notably, climate change is rapidly melting Greenland’s permafrost. This melting ice not only creates more favourable conditions for accessing resources and developing infrastructure, but also opens up the possibility of exploiting new maritime routes within the Arctic space, thereby further increasing the strategic value of this region.
Strategic ambitions and the geopolitical landscape of major power competition in Greenland
Recent developments reveal that Greenland is no longer an autonomous territory on the “periphery” of Europe; it is steadily becoming a new focal point of strategic interests in global geopolitical competition. According to international scholars, amongst the major powers, the United States is the country most clearly demonstrating ambitions to increase its control over Greenland. In 2019, US President Donald Trump publicly raised the idea of purchasing Greenland, likening it to a “large real estate deal”. By late 2025 and early 2026, this idea was elevated to an “absolute national security priority”. To realise this idea, Donald Trump’s administration implemented a series of assertive steps, such as: appointing the Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, as a special envoy for Greenland affairs - a specialised and urgent mandate, and increasing tariffs to force Denmark and its European allies to make concessions. Although these tariff measures were subsequently paused ahead of the EU Summit in Brussels (Belgium) and after reaching a preliminary agreement with NATO in Davos (Switzerland) regarding Greenland (on 23 January 2026), these moves still demonstrate the level of assertiveness in the US approach to this strategic island.
According to international researchers, in the near future, the possibility that Washington will consider military measures if it does not achieve its desired objectives cannot be ruled out. A notable point is that in the new US National Defence Strategy (NDS) published on 24 January 2026, Washington made a significant adjustment in its security orientation, downgrading the priority of Europe and officially elevating Greenland to a core domestic security concern. Listing Greenland alongside the Panama Canal as territories that need to be secured to protect national interests expresses the special attention the US is devoting to this Arctic island.
In response to the US moves, Denmark reacted immediately, affirming its stance on protecting national sovereignty and security order based on international law. Accordingly, Copenhagen has repeatedly emphasised that Greenland is a constituent part of the Kingdom of Denmark, whilst affirming that all issues relating to the island’s future must be resolved through dialogue and international legal mechanisms. Alongside this, the Greenlandic government and local population have also clearly confirmed their right to self-determination by consistently expressing their desire to expand international cooperation in a balanced manner, refusing to let Greenland become a “pawn” in great-power competition. Approximately 85% of surveyed citizens showed a firm stance against their territory becoming part of the United States; numerous large protests have taken place in the capital Nuuk - the political, administrative, economic, and cultural centre of Greenland - in response to Washington’s moves.
At regional level, the EU also swiftly demonstrated a relatively unified stance, viewing the US moves as an attack on the rules-based world order and an action that could divide the transatlantic alliance. European countries have expressed solidarity with Denmark and warned that the US’s measures of occupying or purchasing the sovereignty of a territory in Europe would completely destroy trust amongst the parties. In the current context, the EU is concentrating on promoting strategic autonomy, deciding to increase defence spending and formulating a separate policy for the Arctic region to protect the alliance’s long-term interests.
Besides the US and the EU, Russia and China have also evinced their profound interest in Greenland. Russia considers Greenland an inseparable element in its overall Arctic strategy. Accordingly, with its geographical advantages and long coastline along the Arctic Ocean, Russia is investing heavily in modernising its forces, reactivating military bases, developing its icebreaker fleet, expanding control over the “Northern Sea Route” to both serve economic development goals and contribute to enhancing its capacity to control the strategic Arctic region - activities that directly impact the security environment around Greenland. Although not an Arctic nation, China also shows a clear interest in Greenland. According to international analysts, Beijing’s self-identification as a “near-Arctic state” reveals a flexible approach, gradually participating more deeply in regional governance, linking the Arctic with long-term goals regarding energy security, trade, and global supply chains. International public opinion suggests that the ambitions of major powers in Greenland are making the competitive landscape in the Arctic region increasingly complex and multi-dimensional.
Impacts on the region and the world
According to international researchers, the current Greenland issue exposes and risks deepening strategic rifts within NATO. The fact that the US - the key power in the alliance - is publicly pursuing intentions to increase its influence, or even control, over the sovereign territory of an ally could create a precedent in intra-bloc relations. This not only diminishes strategic trust amongst member states, but also raises questions about the limits of collective security commitments when the national interests of major powers are placed at the forefront - “above all else, first and foremost”. While NATO is simultaneously facing numerous security challenges, a lack of intra-bloc consensus could weaken the capacity for joint coordination and response in the Arctic region and the world.
Furthermore, military experts suggest that the strategic competition surrounding Greenland risks accelerating the militarisation trend in the Arctic region. Greenland’s strategic position in missile defence systems, control of maritime routes, space surveillance, and more, makes this region a crucial fulcrum for the strategic deterrence calculations of major powers. The increased military presence, expansion of defence infrastructure, and deployment of new capabilities by relevant parties could create a security spiral, in which each “defensive” move is perceived by the adversary as a potential threat. Consequently, the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation of tensions amongst major powers is a factor that cannot be underestimated.
On a global scale, the Greenland issue reflects a trend of major powers increasingly prioritising the use of strength and strategic advantage to protect and expand national interests, which poses a serious challenge to international law and common standards of conduct. Valuing power over principles, or being willing to exert economic and political pressure on partners and allies, will lead to the risk of eroding the principle of “inviolable sovereignty” enshrined in the United Nations Charter. International public opinion fears that if this trend continues and is not effectively controlled, disputes related to Greenland could become a “dangerous precedent” promoting “power politics” and weakening the role of multilateral institutions in maintaining peace, stability, and international cooperation.
Greenland today is no longer merely an icy land, but has become a focal point of geopolitical competition amongst major powers. The fierce opposition from Denmark, the Inuit community, and the European Union demonstrates that the path Washington is pursuing will encounter numerous legal and moral barriers. International observers believe that the ultimate fate of Greenland will not only shape the future of the island’s inhabitants, but also serve as a decisive test for the survival of a rules-based world order.
LUU VAN VINH, MA