The New Great Game in the Arctic: Strategic Competition for Greenland

By Viktoriia Vitsenko

Key takeaways:

• Greenland has emerged as a key arena in global strategic competition, with the U.S., China, and the EU vying for influence over the island’s resources, location, and growing political autonomy.
• The island’s position near the GIUK gap and trans-Arctic routes makes it central to NATO’s northern defense and future maritime logistics, while its rare earth reserves are vital to Western energy and tech supply chains.
• China’s earlier investments in Greenland’s mining sector have been rolled back due to local environmental concerns and geopolitical sensitivities, curbing Beijing’s Arctic ambitions.
• Trump’s renewed calls for U.S. control over Greenland have provoked sharp responses from Denmark and the EU, triggering new European investments in Arctic defense.
• Greenland’s 2024 foreign and security strategy asserts its sovereignty and conditions all foreign engagement on sustainable development and local control, complicating external power plays.
• The island now sits at the intersection of resource security, alliance dynamics, and global power shifts—testing the cohesion of NATO and the credibility of EU strategic autonomy.

Since the early 21st century, the Arctic has re-emerged as a strategic region due to climate change, increased accessibility, and the competition for resources. Once described with the Norwegian phrase “High North, low tension,” the region is now at the center of global strategic calculations involving the U.S., Russia, China, and the EU.

The Strategic Value of Greenland

Greenland has re-emerged as a pivotal node in Arctic geopolitics due to its unique convergence of strategic location, natural resources, and growing political agency. As climate change accelerates the region’s transformation, the island is drawing renewed interest from major powers, particularly in the context of transatlantic defense, global trade, and the green energy transition.

Greenland occupies a central position in the Arctic’s evolving maritime landscape. Situated near the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, the island plays a critical role in NATO’s northern defense strategy, particularly for monitoring Russian submarine activity and securing Atlantic sea lines of communication. Its proximity to future trans-Arctic routes—namely the Northwest Passage and the Transpolar Sea Route—further amplifies its strategic relevance. As ice continues to recede, vessel traffic through these passages is expected to increase, positioning Greenland as a potential hub for Arctic maritime governance and logistics.

Natural Resources and Economic Potential

The island is home to substantial reserves of critical raw materials, including rare earth elements (REEs), uranium, and strategic metals such as zinc and nickel. These materials are essential for renewable energy technologies, electric vehicles, and modern defense systems. According to estimates cited in Swedish media, Greenland’s underground resource potential may exceed $2.5 trillion. However, the local government has halted new oil and gas exploration licenses since 2021, due to environmental concerns and a shift toward sustainable economic development.

In addition to minerals, Greenland’s long-term economic value lies in its role as a stable, democratically governed source of raw materials. As the EU and other Western actors seek to reduce dependency on imports from authoritarian regimes, Greenland’s resource sovereignty has become a focal point of strategic interest.

Political Status and Expanding Autonomy

Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Since the adoption of the 2009 Self-Government Act, it has gained authority over most domestic affairs and has the right to declare independence. In 2024, Greenland released its first national Foreign, Defense, and Security Strategy, titled “Greenland in the World – Nothing About Us Without Us.” This document affirms Nuuk’s aspiration to play a more active role in international affairs and reaffirms its right to shape external engagements in line with national interests.

The gradual expansion of Greenland’s autonomy, especially in foreign and security policy, has reinforced its position as not merely a passive territory but an emerging actor in Arctic diplomacy. This shift has drawn the attention of global powers seeking strategic partnerships or influence in the region.

China’s Arctic Ambitions

China has steadily developed a long-term strategy for increasing its presence and influence in the Arctic, driven by both economic interests and geopolitical considerations. While it lacks territorial claims in the region, Beijing has sought to legitimize its role through scientific research, infrastructure investments, and diplomatic engagement, particularly in Greenland and Iceland.

China’s engagement with the Arctic began in the 1980s through scientific expeditions and research collaboration. Over the following decades, this soft entry evolved into a more structured approach. In 2018, Beijing released its first official Arctic policy white paper, declaring itself a “near-Arctic state”—a controversial term not recognized under international law. The strategy outlines China’s ambition to develop a “Polar Silk Road” as part of its broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), aiming to secure economic corridors and shipping routes (to reduce dependency on the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal) and access to Arctic natural resources.

Economic Interests in Greenland

China identified Greenland as a key foothold in the Arctic due to its mineral wealth and emerging autonomy. At one point, Chinese investment accounted for around 12% of Greenland’s GDP. State-backed firms such as Shenghe Resources acquired stakes in mining projects containing rare earths and uranium. In 2016, a Chinese company attempted to purchase an abandoned naval base in southern Greenland, which was later blocked by Danish authorities on national security grounds.

By 2021, Greenland had revoked all remaining Chinese access to its mining sector, citing environmental concerns and strategic sensitivities. As of 2020, of 39 active mining licenses in Greenland, none were held by Chinese entities. The government’s Uranium Act and growing scrutiny of foreign influence further curtailed Beijing’s presence on the island.

Broader Arctic Engagement and Security Concerns

Beyond Greenland, China has significantly increased its economic footprint across the Arctic. From 2012 to 2017, it invested over $90 billion in Arctic countries, including infrastructure, shipping, and resource extraction. This expansion has raised alarms among Western governments. In 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned that Chinese investments could serve as precursors to a future military presence in the region, including submarine deployments.

China’s military cooperation with Russia, including joint exercises such as Vostok-2018, has further deepened concerns about its long-term intentions. While China continues to present its Arctic involvement as peaceful and commercial, Western analysts increasingly view its actions through the lens of strategic competition and dual-use capabilities.

The EU and key Arctic states, including Denmark, Canada, and Finland, have taken steps to block or limit Chinese investments in critical infrastructure. The European Commission intervened diplomatically in 2012 to dissuade Greenland from granting China exclusive access to rare earths. Subsequent EU-Greenland agreements have emphasized transparency, sustainability, and local partnership in resource development.

China’s Arctic ambitions remain part of its broader global strategy to secure long-term access to resources, diversify supply chains, and reshape the norms of international governance. While its influence in Greenland has been rolled back, Beijing is unlikely to abandon its Arctic interests altogether.

U.S. Arctic Policy under Trump

Under Donald Trump’s leadership, U.S. Arctic policy underwent a marked shift—from multilateral environmental cooperation under the Obama administration to a security-first approach shaped by strategic rivalry with China and Russia. Now, in his renewed political ascent, Trump’s rhetoric and actions continue to reflect a transactional, hard-power vision for the Arctic, particularly regarding Greenland.

The United States has long viewed Greenland as a vital component of its Arctic defense architecture. The island hosts key North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) facilities, including Thule Air Base, which provides early warning capabilities for ballistic missile threats and supports U.S. and NATO surveillance in the Arctic region.

The Arctic also regained strategic prominence during Trump’s first term with several key moves.

• In 2018, the U.S. Navy reactivated the 2nd Fleet to address security challenges in the North Atlantic.
• The Department of Defense’s 2019 Arctic Strategy identified the region as an arena of “strategic competition” with China and Russia.
• The U.S. increased participation in NATO Arctic exercises, including the Trident Juncture drills.
• Military cooperation with Norway intensified, with U.S. troops stationed near Trondheim.

This reorientation framed the Arctic less as a zone of scientific cooperation and more as a theater of geopolitical rivalry.

In August 2019, President Trump publicly floated the idea of purchasing Greenland. The suggestion was met with firm rejection by both Greenlandic and Danish authorities. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the idea “absurd,” prompting Trump to cancel a planned state visit to Denmark. Despite the backlash, the proposal was rooted in broader strategic calculations: securing access to Greenland’s resources, limiting Chinese and Russian influence, and reinforcing U.S. control over Arctic logistics and surveillance.

A Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Greenland was signed shortly afterward, attempting to deepen bilateral engagement, even if the ownership proposal was shelved.

Trump’s revived statements in early 2025, suggesting that U.S. control over Greenland is “an absolute necessity,” mark a return to this vision. While controversial, they align with his broader foreign policy approach rooted in zero-sum calculations and transactional diplomacy.

Escalating Rhetoric and Strategic Risks

Trump’s second-term rhetoric has been more confrontational. Reportedly, it included suggestions of using “any tools” to pressure Denmark and even invoking the possibility of military action. These remarks have been met with strong European resistance and have raised serious concerns about transatlantic stability.

The strategic rationale for the U.S. interest in Greenland remains consistent throughout administrations. However, the unilateral tone of Trump’s statements, especially when directed at an ally, risks undermining NATO solidarity, destabilizing Arctic cooperation, and weakening the U.S.-EU relationship at a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty.

Despite Trump’s claims that Greenlanders “want to be with us,” surveys show strong opposition on the island. A 2025 poll indicated that 85% of Greenland’s population opposes joining the U.S., with nearly half viewing Washington’s growing interest as a threat to their sovereignty. Greenland’s government has continued to emphasize sustainable development, local control, and international cooperation on equal terms. In addition, the center-right Demokraatit party, which won the most votes in the parliamentary elections on March 12, 2025, rejects Trump’s statements on U.S. control over the island.

European Response and Strategic Autonomy

The European reaction to renewed U.S. ambitions in Greenland has underscored its commitment to defending territorial sovereignty and asserting its strategic autonomy. Greenland, while not an EU member, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and thus remains closely tied to the Union through legal, economic, and geopolitical frameworks.

In response to Trump’s 2025 statements suggesting potential coercion or even force to secure control over Greenland, European leaders responded with unusual unity and firmness. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte B. Egede rejected the remarks outright, reaffirming that “Greenland is for the Greenlandic people.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen echoed this position, stressing the principle of sovereignty.

Denmark responded by announcing a €1.95 billion increase in defense spending specifically earmarked for the Arctic and North Atlantic. Germany and France voiced strong support for Denmark, framing the integrity of Greenland as a matter of European security. Former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz explicitly linked Trump’s rhetoric to broader threats against the international order, invoking parallels with Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s borders.

NATO and EU Legal Safeguards

Greenland’s status within the Kingdom of Denmark brings it under both NATO’s Article 5 and the EU’s mutual defense clause (Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union). Any hostile move by a NATO member against Greenland would present an unprecedented legal and political crisis for the Alliance. A U.S. invasion of Greenland would constitute a breach of both EU and NATO obligations.

There were even informal discussions about potential EU troop deployments to Greenland—not as a countermeasure to the U.S., but as a symbolic demonstration of solidarity and deterrence.

Beyond defense posturing, the EU has deepened institutional ties with Greenland in recent years. In November 2023, Brussels and Nuuk signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing a strategic partnership on sustainable raw materials. In March 2024, the EU opened a permanent office in Nuuk. Furthermore, two cooperation agreements totaling €94 million were signed to support education and green economic development on the island.

These actions reflect the EU’s growing awareness of Greenland’s relevance to its Critical Raw Materials strategy and its broader aim of reducing dependency on third-country suppliers, especially China. As of 2021, the EU sourced 98% of its rare earth imports from China. The 2023 Critical Raw Materials Act mandates that at least 35% of critical minerals be sourced or recycled within the EU or partner borders.

Greenland’s Perspective and the Sustainability Imperative

Greenlandic leadership has been clear: they welcome foreign investment, including from the EU and the U.S., but it must align with their environmental standards and local development goals. Greenland’s Minister of Mineral Resources, Naaja Nathanielsen, noted that opening a mine on the island typically takes over 15 years due to the lack of infrastructure and rigorous approval processes. The people of Greenland, while economically ambitious, remain cautious about foreign influence that disregards local needs and environmental limits.

Conclusion

The contest over Greenland illustrates broader shifts in global power politics, where strategic geography, resource security, and alliance cohesion intersect in increasingly complex ways. What began as a provocative suggestion by U.S. President Donald Trump has evolved into a test case for the resilience of the transatlantic partnership and the credibility of international norms.

Greenland now stands at the confluence of three major currents: rising multipolar competition, reconfiguration of transatlantic priorities in the Arctic, and global shifts toward resource security and green industrial policies. Efforts by external actors to assert unilateral influence, whether economic or military, risk not only destabilizing Greenland itself but also undermining broader regional and institutional frameworks, particularly NATO and the EU.

Greenland’s strategic relevance will only increase in the decades ahead. Whether it becomes a flashpoint of confrontation or a model of cooperative stewardship will depend on the choices made today by its partners, particularly the United States and the European Union.

The way forward lies in preserving cooperation and de-escalating tensions through credible diplomatic engagement and transparent strategic communication. Four principles should guide policy in the coming years:

• Respect for Greenland’s autonomy as a self-governing democracy within the Kingdom of Denmark.
• Reinforcement of multilateral commitments through NATO and EU coordination on Arctic security.
• Joint investment frameworks between the EU and the U.S. to develop Greenland’s infrastructure and resource potential sustainably.
• Strategic clarity and restraint, avoiding zero-sum rhetoric and reasserting the Arctic as a region of rules-based cooperation.

---

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the papers published on this site belong solely to the authors and not necessarily to the Transatlantic Dialogue Center, its committees, or its affiliated organizations. The papers are intended to stimulate dialogue and discussion and do not represent official policy positions of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center or any other organizations with which the authors may be associated.