The Greenland Question That Will Not Go Away: Why the Arctic Island Is Worth Fighting Over

Trump's demand for Greenland is not going away. Here is the genuine strategic case for why the US, China, and Russia all care deeply about the world's largest island.

The mockery of Donald Trump's Greenland fixation — 'the US president wants to buy an island' is genuinely funny as a headline — has obscured something important: the strategic analysis underlying American interest in Greenland is not manufactured. It predates Trump, it is shared by career national security officials across multiple administrations, and it is becoming more compelling rather than less as the Arctic opens up.

Greenland sits at a geographic position of extraordinary strategic importance that becomes clearer when you look at a globe rather than a flat map projection. Located at the intersection of the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean, Greenland controls the maritime passage between the American continent and Europe, commands airspace over the polar air routes that are now the standard for commercial aviation between North America and Asia, and sits directly astride the projected routes of Russian ballistic missile submarines deploying to patrol areas in the North Atlantic.

The United States has maintained military presence on Greenland since 1941. Pituffik Space Base — formerly Thule Air Base — hosts missile early warning radar, space surveillance systems, and other strategic capabilities that contribute significantly to the US nuclear deterrent architecture. The Inuit Greenlandic population of 57,000 has lived with this military presence for 80 years.

Climate change is increasing Greenland's strategic importance in real time. The Arctic Ocean is losing ice coverage at a rate that is making previously inaccessible shipping routes commercially viable for longer periods each summer. The Northeast Passage along Russia's Arctic coast is already in use by Russian icebreakers and increasingly by commercial vessels. The Northwest Passage through Canadian Arctic waters is opening similarly. Control of — or significant military presence in — the approaches to these routes will be a significant strategic asset in the 2030s and 2040s.

Denmark is right to refuse Trump's framing. But the underlying American anxiety about Arctic strategic position is a rational concern that any US administration, regardless of style, would hold.