Dr Jintu Sarma
(Sr Asstt Professor, Guwahati College)
Long perceived as a remote, ice-covered expanse on the periphery of global affairs, Greenland has transformed in the early 2020s into a primary theatre of 21st-century geopolitics. It is still an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, but its political pulse is being felt more and more in Washington, Beijing, and Brussels. The convergence of a warming climate, the discovery of vast critical mineral reserves, and a resurgent American interest in Arctic sovereignty has thrust Greenland into a position of unprecedented global influence.
Greenlandic politics is defined by a fundamental tension: the aspiration for full independence versus the reality of economic dependence. Under the 2009 Self-Government Act, Greenlanders are recognized as a separate people under international law, with the right to pursue independence at their discretion. Currently, the Greenland government manages almost all domestic affairs, while Denmark retains control over foreign policy, defence, and currency.
The primary obstacle to sovereignty is the block grant—an annual subsidy from Denmark of approximately $600 million (covering roughly half of Greenland’s public budget). Consequently, domestic political debate centres around “economic self-sufficiency.” Parties like the left-leaning Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) and the social-democratic Siumut navigate a delicate path: they seek to develop the island’s resource wealth to replace Danish funds without compromising the fragile Arctic environment or the traditional Inuit way of life.
The year 2026 has seen a dramatic escalation in international interest. Following the re-election of Donald Trump in 2025, the U.S. has renewed its focus on Greenland with aggressive rhetoric. The introduction of the “Make Greenland Great Again Act” and the appointment of a special envoy to the island signal a shift from partnership to a more transactional, “real estate” approach.
The U.S. views Greenland as a “national security necessity” for three primary reasons: Defence Infrastructure: The Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) is a cornerstone of the U.S. ballistic missile early-warning system. The GIUK Gap: Greenland sits at a critical maritime chokepoint (Greenland-Iceland-UK gap), essential for monitoring Russian submarine activity. Countering Rivals: Both Russia and China have expanded their Arctic footprints. Russia has revitalised Soviet-era
bases, while China, labelling itself a “near-Arctic state”, seeks to integrate Greenland into its “Polar Silk Road”.
In response to U.S. pressure, European nations like France and Germany have recently deployed small contingents of military personnel to Greenland at Denmark’s request, seeking to “Europeanise” Arctic security and protect the territorial integrity of a NATO ally from unilateral American coercion. Greenland holds some of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements (REEs) and critical minerals like neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. These are essential for the global “green transition”—powering electric vehicles, wind turbines, and high-tech defence systems.
This situation creates a paradox: to save the global climate, the world may need to mine the very island that serves as the “canary in the coal mine” for global warming. Domestic protests over environmental risks meet mining projects like Tanbreez, which offer a path to economic independence from Denmark. For instance, the IA party emerged victorious in the 2021 election, pledging to halt the Kvanefjeld uranium and rare-earth mining project.
The 57,000 inhabitants of Greenland are at the centre of the tension. The island is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, but its path toward full independence is being complicated by external pressures. Greenlanders have long sought sovereignty, but they face a “Catch-22”. Independence would require replacing the massive annual subsidies provided by Denmark. While some leaders in Nuuk initially saw U.S. investment as a way to achieve economic freedom from Copenhagen, the threat of U.S. annexation has cooled local enthusiasm. In January 2026, Denmark and several NATO allies launched the “Arctic Sentry” mission, increasing their military presence on the island specifically to signal that Greenland remains under European protection and to deter any unilateral U.S. moves.
The tensions surrounding Greenland are more than just a dispute over land; they are a symptom of a shifting global order. As the ice thaws, the island has become a microcosm of modern conflict: a place where environmental catastrophe creates economic opportunity and where old alliances are tested by new imperial ambitions. For Greenland, the challenge of the coming decade will be to navigate these “Great Power” waters without losing its voice or its soul. The island’s future—whether as an independent nation, a Danish partner, or an American outpost—will likely define the security architecture of the Arctic for the rest of the century.