Why Greenland Matters: US Strategy in the Changing Arctic

Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, a U.S. Space Force base located on the northwest coast in Greenland, on Oct. 4, 2023. Thomas Traasdahl/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images

Commentary

To the shock of many, President Trump has declared his interest in acquiring Greenland, calling it vital to national security and critical to preempting any attempt by China to gain influence or control of Greenland. And he has wisely left all options on the table, no matter how unlikely, by declining to rule out economic coercion or force as to acquire it. And China’s great interest in Greenland must not be allowed to morph into what happened with the  Panama Canal. Interestingly, a new poll indicates that Greenlanders are very open to becoming part of the United States.

At a high level, President Trump’s focus on Greenland is about its increasing importance to U.S. national security and the energy dominance that he has promised to deliver. The increased importance of Greenland in these two areas, versus its importance during the height of the Cold War, come from changes in polar ice coverage making once impassible sea lanes and impenetrable territories far less so. This increased accessibility to the Arctic Sea and land masses, coupled with powerful icebreakers, has opened new opportunities for vastly increased merchant shipping, much better access to the Arctic’s vast natural resources, and increased human habitation.

The improved access to the Arctic has also increased the need for the United States to secure its northern borders as more Chinese and Russian naval vessels with missiles capable of striking the United States ply the waters around Greenland.

Elaborating a bit, Greenland is placed strategically along two potential shipping routes through the Arctic: The Northwest Passage bordering the North America’s northern coastline and the Transpolar Sea Route right through the center of the Arctic Ocean. With changes in ice coverage, these routes have seen big increases in ships transiting them, both military and commercial. This makes Greenland far more strategic than it was during the Cold War.

The town of Ilulissat in western Greenland. Alex Savu/Visit Greenland

Further enhancing the strategic value of Greenland is that roughly two-thirds of it is actually in the Arctic Circle. This makes it is an excellent hopping off point/staging area for accessing the Arctic region that is highly complementary to the 15 percent of Arctic territory the United States controls via Alaska. Because about one-half (53 percent) of  the Arctic is part of Russia, fully leveraging Greenland, as well as Alaska, is essential for the United States’ ability to compete for presence in and control of the Arctic region. But merely leveraging Greenland will not be enough. To be positioned to compete for Arctic influence and control, you need a very critical manmade resource that the United States is short on and Russia is rich in—icebreakers

As of 2025, Russia’s fleet of conventional and nuclear icebreakers dwarfs that of the United States, and Russia is in the process of building even more Project 22220 nuclear-powered icebreakers. These icebreakers, with a displacement of 32,000 tons and the ability to continuously break ice of up to 10.6 feet of thickness, dwarf the largest U.S. icebreaker, the USCGC Healy, which displaces 16,000 tons with the ability to continuously break ice of up to 4.5  feet in thickness.

Indeed, Russia’s fleet of nuclear and conventionally powered icebreakers enables it to support operations in the Arctic region at a level far beyond what the United States will be able to match given its lack of shipbuilding capacity, which also has the U.S. Navy struggling to avoid an ever-decreasing number of deployable ships.

Adding to U.S. woes when it comes to competing for Arctic control is that the Ukraine-Russia conflict has brought China and Russia much closer together than at any other time in modern history. This has resulted in China, the largest shipbuilder in the world by far,  and Russia partnering to dominate the Arctic.

Journalists attend the float-out of the Sibir (Siberia) nuclear-powered icebreaker at the Baltic Shipyard in Saint Petersburg on Sept. 22, 2017. AFP Photo/Olga Maltseva

Consequently, even with the United States being able to fully leverage Greenland, it faces a steep climb when it comes to securing a slice of the Arctic pie commensurate with its leading position in the Great Power competition. Of course, all that could change if Canada and the United States came to a mutually beneficial agreement to work together to take advantage of the natural resources contained in the 40 percent of the Arctic that is part of Canada.

However, as important as Greenland is in securing substantial deposits of rare earth elements and oil, its role in securing the United States’ northern flank is more important immediately. And Greenland, even with Denmark’s support, is not up to the task.

As things stand, Greenland, with a population of about 56,000, is an autonomous territory of Denmark. And despite some claims to the contrary, with Denmark exercising control over Greenland’s foreign affairs, security, and defense policy, Greenland is not recognized as a country, nor could it effectively operate effectively as a fully independent country. With its small economy revolving around subsidized fishing jobs and to a lesser extent agriculture, its 2024 GDP, including about $600 million in annual support from its colonial owner Denmark, is about $3.4 billion. The GDP also receives a significant boost from the United States’ Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, that is currently manned by 700 personnel.

It is clear that, even with support from Denmark, this is not a nation the United States can rely on to secure its northern flank and that is why President Trump is very interested in acquiring it. With this in mind, a recent poll found 57 percent of Greenlanders want to become a state of the United States, with only 37.4 percent opposing such a move. While statehood is not a real option at this time, like Hawaii once was, it could become a protectorate territory of the United States. However, regardless of what formal relationship is established, Greenland still needs a national security partner that can both protect it and help it responsibly leverage its natural resources. And for that, the most logical partner would be the region’s Great Power and fellow North American, the United States.

Finally, no way can the United States allow what happened with Panama and China to happen with Greenland.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.