Why Greenland Matters to the United States, and Why Some People Are Sceptical

8 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Greenland has become an increasingly prominent part of global geopolitical discussion, particularly in relation to the United States. On the surface, the interest can appear puzzling. Greenland has a small population, harsh conditions, and limited infrastructure. Yet for Washington, it represents one of the most strategically significant territories in the world.

Snow-covered mountains and rocky peaks rise above a deep blue sea, under a clear sky, creating a serene and majestic landscape.

At the same time, recent events elsewhere have led many observers to question whether security alone explains American interest in regions rich in natural resources. Greenland now sits at the intersection of strategic necessity and public scepticism.

Greenland’s strategic importance to US security

The primary and most consistently stated reason for US interest in Greenland is security.

Greenland occupies a crucial geographic position between North America and Europe. It sits along the shortest route for ballistic missiles travelling between Russia and the United States. This makes it essential for early warning systems and missile defence.

The US has maintained a military presence in Greenland since the Second World War. Today, Pituffik Space Base plays a key role in monitoring missile launches, tracking satellites, and supporting NATO defence architecture. These systems are designed to protect not only the United States but also its allies.

As Arctic ice continues to melt, the region is becoming more accessible to military and commercial activity. Russia has expanded its Arctic bases, and China has declared itself a near-Arctic state. From Washington’s perspective, maintaining influence in Greenland helps prevent rivals from gaining a foothold in a region that directly affects North Atlantic security.

The Arctic, climate change, and future competition

Climate change has transformed Greenland’s relevance. What was once largely inaccessible is now opening up.

New shipping routes could shorten trade paths between Asia, Europe, and North America. Scientific research, undersea cables, and surveillance infrastructure are all becoming more viable. Greenland’s location places it at the centre of these emerging routes.

For the United States, this makes Greenland less of a remote territory and more of a forward position in an increasingly contested region.

Red Mobil barrel secured with ropes on wood structure, against a cloudy sky. Blue pipes and rusty metal bar in background.

Oil and resource speculation as a secondary factor

While security dominates official policy discussions, resource speculation is often raised as an additional reason for interest in Greenland.

Greenland is believed to hold potential offshore oil and gas reserves, as well as deposits of rare earth elements, lithium, graphite, and other critical minerals. These materials are essential for electronics, renewable energy systems, and defence technologies.

It is important to note that Greenland currently restricts new oil and gas exploration licences, largely due to environmental concerns. Large-scale extraction remains difficult, expensive, and politically sensitive.

For the United States, oil is not a strategic necessity in Greenland. The country is already one of the world’s largest oil producers. However, critical minerals are a longer-term concern. The US remains heavily dependent on foreign supply chains, particularly from China, for many of these materials.

This makes Greenland attractive as a potential future partner rather than an immediate resource solution.

Why scepticism exists

Despite official explanations, scepticism persists, and not without reason.

In recent years, the United States has taken highly visible actions elsewhere that involved control over oil production and transport. These actions have reinforced a long-standing public perception that resource interests sometimes sit beneath security justifications.

The Iraq War remains a powerful reference point. Although the official rationale focused on weapons and security threats, the protection and control of oil fields became a defining feature of the conflict in the public imagination. That perception continues to shape how many people interpret US foreign policy today.

More recently, actions involving sanctions, tanker seizures, and control of oil revenues in other regions have revived these concerns. When military or economic pressure coincides with resource-rich territories, scepticism follows.

Against this backdrop, even legitimate security interests can be viewed through a lens of historical mistrust.

Greenland is not Iraq, but history shapes perception

Greenland differs significantly from past conflict zones. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. The United States does not dispute Danish sovereignty and has repeatedly stated that Greenland’s future must be decided by its people.

US engagement in Greenland has focused on diplomacy, scientific cooperation, and defence partnerships rather than intervention. There has been no military conflict, no occupation, and no attempt to forcibly extract resources.

However, history matters. Public opinion is shaped not only by current actions but by patterns over time. When people see strategic interest combined with resource potential, they naturally draw comparisons.

Denmark’s role as a stabilising factor

Denmark plays a crucial role in shaping how Greenland is engaged internationally. As the sovereign state responsible for defence and foreign policy, Denmark ensures that US involvement occurs within established legal and diplomatic frameworks.

This partnership reduces the likelihood of unilateral action and helps keep Greenland’s development aligned with environmental standards and local governance.

The broader reality

Greenland’s importance to the United States is real, and it is primarily rooted in geography and defence. Resource speculation exists, but it is not the driving force behind current policy.

At the same time, scepticism is understandable. History has taught many people to question official narratives when strategic interests and natural resources overlap.

The truth lies in the tension between these two realities. Greenland matters because of where it is, what it enables, and what it may one day provide. How it is treated will determine whether it becomes a model of cooperation or another chapter in a long story of mistrust.

Greenland is not a prize to be taken, but a partner to be engaged. Whether that distinction holds in the long term will depend not just on policy statements, but on actions.

In a world shaped by climate change, great power competition, and historical memory, even legitimate interests must contend with the weight of the past.

Current Most Read

Why Netflix Is Circling Warner Bros, and How a Century-Old Studio Reached This Point

What Christmas 2025 Revealed About the Future of Consoles

What is a skeuomorph

Gregory Devine
Nov 14, 2024
3 min read

When you go to save a document on Word, which button do you press? There are many ways to do it but chances are you select the floppy disk in the top corner of the screen. Ever consider that this is a little odd? Floppy disks have been obsolete for years now, yet we instinctively know that this is the save button.

This is called a skeuomorph—it’s when something new takes on the appearance of what it has replaced. Once you start looking, you’ll realise they’re everywhere.

Open up your smartphone. When you want to make a phone call, you tap on the app that looks like an old fashioned telephone receiver. When you go to send an email, you tap the app with a letter on it. Despite emails being fully digital and them not looking remotely similar to a physical letter, we still know this app’s function and what it replaced.

Skeuomorphs aren’t always physical, they can also be a sound. If you click on your smartphone’s camera app (which looks like a physical camera,) to take a photo, you may notice a shutter sound when you click the button, despite your phone’s camera having no physical shutter to open and close. Real cameras make this noise. However, it’s useful to have some sort of signal that your phone has captured an image. Otherwise, you’d just have to guess that the phone’s camera app worked, which, if you’re taking a posed picture (especially of a large group of people) or you wish to capture a specific moment in time, isn’t very helpful!

The term skeuomorph was coined by archaeologist H. Colley March in 1889, after he noticed that some ancient artefacts retained the design features of older, similar objects, even if these were no longer necessary. Take a look at classical architecture, such as Greek temples—these structures were once built of wood. When building with wood you, of course, need wooden beams. When building with stone, these beams aren’t necessary, yet they’re still incorporated in the stone’s design. Not only is this a homage to the previous way of doing things, it’s also aesthetically pleasing.

Skeuomorphs are a feature of electric cars. These vehicles don’t require cooling vents nor a grill at the front, yet most electric cars still incorporate these in their designs. We’re so used to seeing combustion engine cars with these features that it looks odd to remove them.

There’s no reason for digital keyboards to make a sound when you type, yet, because they represent laptop keyboards and even typewriters (which were really quite noisy), our brains expect a sound to be there. This gives us the illusion that we’re still using a physical keyboard, despite it being on a screen.

The notes section in our phones doesn’t need to look like lined paper or a sticky note. The lock screen doesn’t need to make the sound of a padlock, but most do. All these things help us locate and understand them quicker because they bear a direct reference to their previous iteration.

The trend is changing though. We’re moving away from skeuomorphism and instead opting for more minimalist design. The original versions of iOS (the iPhone’s operating system) were incredibly skeuomorphic but newer versions have opted for a simpler appearance. We’re now aware of how to use smartphones, so the need for things to look familiar isn’t as strong.

The Instagram logo used to be that of a Polaroid camera, which captured and printed images instantly; now, the logo is a much simpler representation of a Polaroid—to the point where, if you didn’t know what the logo used to be, you probably wouldn’t guess. Either way, it’s still clear that it represents Instagram.

Skeuomorphs divide opinion…for instance, is there still a need for this kind of design style, or should digital design move on and find its own innovations? Many people haven’t even used the objects skeuomorphs represent, so is there any point to them? Personally, I quite like them, but that might be because I’m not a huge fan of the new super-simplistic designs everyone seems to be using.