Arctic Chessboard: The Race for Greenland Has Begun – by Nikoloz Khatiashvili
Developments surrounding Greenland have become one of the central issues in global politics since US President Donald Trump expressed a strong desire to purchase the island—language that later escalated even to rhetoric about a forceful control. This situation has generated tensions between the United States and Denmark, with other EU countries subsequently becoming involved. In addition, against this backdrop of heightened strain, the United States imposed 10% tariffs on a number of European countries.
Trump’s objective is to bring Greenland under US control, which he justifies on national security grounds. Greenland has a strategic location and attractive natural resources, making it an important part of US national security considerations. In today’s world, geopolitical tensions are deepening rapidly, the climate is changing, and global competition is intensifying. In this context, Greenland and the Arctic more broadly is emerging as an epicenter of contemporary international security. Washington views Greenland as a cornerstone for the security of the Arctic and the North Atlantic space, critical both for ensuring defense and for demonstrating power.
Strategic importance
The Arctic represents a new dimension of the international security system, attracting growing interest from major powers. Climate change is driving Arctic ice melt, which expands maritime routes, unlocks access to new natural resources previously covered by ice, and creates new navigable spaces. This process shortens distances between North America, Europe, and Asia. Against this backdrop, Russian and Chinese interests in the region are also increasing, from the US perspective.
The United States considers Greenland a means to monitor the “gap” between Iceland, the United Kingdom, and the wider North Atlantic region—an area from which, in a crisis, NATO Allies can be supported via sea lines of communication, resources and other channels.
The Security Dimension
For North America, Greenland can serve as a robust security shield. A space base already exists on its territory, operated by a unit under US Space Command. These capabilities include monitoring missile trajectories, satellite surveillance, and operating an early-warning radar responsible for tracking ballistic-missile threats.
Another major driver behind the rising importance of the Greenland question is the perceived military threat emanating from Russia and China. In the event that Russia or China were to launch ballistic missiles towards the United States, Greenland would be one of the areas over or near which those missiles would pass before reaching their targets. By deploying US air and missile defense systems on Greenland, Washington would establish a first line of defense, with which to intercept ballistic missiles, reducing the risk of impact on US territory.
Greenland’s pivotal role for Washington was highlighted as early as 2025, when the US Department of War formally acknowledged its significance at an institutional level and placed it within the operational areas of both US European Command (EUCOM) and US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). It is in US interests for Greenland and the critical infrastructure located there to fall under a jurisdiction and legal framework that guarantees protection and prevents rival states from gaining control. Washington believes Greenland could become a strategic anchor for North America and the Arctic.
The Russian factor is also noteworthy. The Kremlin has significantly strengthened its position in the Arctic and made substantial military investments. It has reopened Soviet-era military bases and upgraded its forces to match Arctic conditions. In this context, Washington sees Greenland as a means of deterring Russia and maintaining the balance of power in the Arctic region.
For the United States, another challenge in the Arctic is China’sfinancing of dual-use infrastructure and its efforts to create new transport corridors. Denmark has already halted the sale of the site of a former military base in Greenland to China and has barred a Chinese state-owned company from building a new airport. As with Russia, Greenland is strategically important for Washington in the Chinese context as well.
Natural resources
Greenland, like the Arctic more broadly, contains significant quantities of diverse natural resources and critical minerals, which are vital to US national security. Today, competition and security are becoming increasingly industrial in nature. Whereas years ago states focused primarily on gaining advantages through armaments, these concerns are now compounded by uninterrupted access to natural resources and energy security.
Greenland possesses unique deposits and rare minerals, while the United States is actively working to diversify supply. According to available information, several American companies are considering major investments in Greenland aimed at developing rare-mineral extraction. By creating a new source of rare minerals from Greenland to the United States, Washington could substantially reduce its dependence on Chinese resources.
Conclusion
US interest in Greenland should be understood in a broader geopolitical context. The Arctic—once seen for centuries as an ice-covered, remote, uninhabited, and uninteresting space—has now transformed into a crossroads of major powers’ strategic ambitions. Moscow and Beijing are seeking influence in an Arctic that is undergoing rapid change. What was once an empty, frozen expanse is becoming a new arena for navigation and a territory rich in natural resources. Greenland occupies a central position on this geopolitical chessboard, and its role and strategic significance are growing by the day.
The United States does not need Greenland for colonial purposes, as some political leaders have suggested, but as a strategic partner and asset, without which ensuring U.S. security in the Arctic would become extremely difficult.
Strengthening Greenland and placing it within a jurisdiction capable of shielding it from Chinese and Russian influence should also be in Europe’s interest. If Russia and China were to achieve strategic superiority in the Arctic, this would directly or indirectly pose a challenge to European security as well. In practical terms, the United States has the resources to support Greenland’s military and economic development in a way that reinforces transatlantic security and helps deter Russia and China in the Arctic—an increasingly urgent requirement, not a distant contingency.
It is likely that the United States and Europe will reach a consensus on Greenland that, on the one hand, protects US national interests, and on the other, develops legal mechanisms acceptable to both sides. Strengthening Greenland also means strengthening NATO, which is a key issue for Europe’s collective security.
If, however, Washington were to decide to establish control over Greenland by force (a very low-probability scenario), the consequences would be severe: it would legitimize Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, significantly weaken NATO as an institution, inflict serious damage on the rules-based international order, and harm the United States’ international image—potentially even leading to its isolation. Accordingly, this trajectory is unlikely.