For most of the modern era, the Arctic didn’t matter much for global powers. It was too cold to ship through and too expensive to build on. But as ice melts and technology improves, the Arctic is opening up. New shipping routes, new resources, and new strategic pathways are coming together, transforming the region into one of the most important areas for 21st-century geostrategic competition. Greenland sits right at the center of this shift. What used to be a remote and frozen periphery is now becoming a pivotal terrain in both economic and security terms—a place where the interests of the world’s major powers are beginning to clash.
The reason that this island matters so much comes down to one word: access. Trade routes come first. As Arctic passages become more viable, they can significantly reduce the time and cost of moving goods between Europe and Asia, offering an alternative to traditional chokepoints such as the Suez and Panama Canals—cutting travel time by up to 50 percent, roughly 14 to 20 days faster, depending on the season and route. Two routes that global powers are especially paying close attention to are the Northwest Passage, running through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and the Transpolar Sea Route, which cuts directly across the Arctic Ocean. As the world order gravitates back toward power-oriented spheres of influence politics, securing critical sea lanes in this region will carry far more strategic weight than it used to. Then there are resources. Greenland is a bonanza for rare-earth elements and other critical minerals—the inputs for semiconductors, advanced magnets, electric vehicles, and defense technologies. With 1.5 million tons of reserves, it holds the eighth-largest supply of rare earths, with two major rare-earth mining sites at Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez. Given that China currently dominates both the processing and supply sides of the rare-earth markets, whoever gains more influence over the island’s upstream supply chain gains a decisive edge in the industries that will define the next era of competition. On top of rare earths, receding glaciers are also improving access to deposits of iron ore, uranium, copper, and oil that were once locked beneath the ice. Security is the third layer. Greenland anchors the northern edge of the U.S. security architecture in the Western Hemisphere. It already plays a central role in missile warning, space tracking, and Arctic monitoring. From NATO’s point of view, it is also crucial for the western edge of the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap, which is the naval chokepoint between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK. For Russia, the GIUK is also the naval corridor through which Russia’s Northern Fleet should pass to get to the North Atlantic. Looking at this dynamic through the balance-of-power lens, this location makes the island a potential flashpoint between Russia and NATO as well.
Given these three dynamics coming into play, the competition over Greenland is not about who has ownership over the island. It is about who has more leverage to shape the system around it—trade, logistics, and access. That’s what brings the U.S., China, and Russia into the same competition over Greenland and the broader Arctic.
The United States: Securing the System
Since President Trump declared that the U.S. needs Greenland “from the standpoint of national security” on Air Force One this January, Washington has adopted an unapologetic stance about its intention to gain control over Greenland. The 2025 National Security Strategy and 2026 National Defense Strategy both placed the Western Hemisphere back at the top of U.S. foreign policy priorities. Echoing the Monroe Doctrine’s ethos, the U.S. wants to consolidate its dominant position in the hemisphere by keeping adversarial actors out. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland is where economic security and national security intersect, making it significant not just for resources and trade, but for hemispheric defense.
On the economic side, the U.S. has two big goals. First, reducing dependence on China for rare earth minerals. Washington has learned the hard way that its expectations to integrate Beijing into the global trade network it has built were naive and ill-advised, as China is now weaponizing supply chains from within that very system. Second, preventing adversaries from gaining the upper hand in building the economic infrastructure in the region. The deeper concern for the U.S. beyond minerals is who builds the ports and logistics networks, who finances the infrastructure, who sets the commercial terms, and ultimately who gets early influence over the trade routes that will only grow more important over time. On the defense side, Greenland falls directly under the flight paths that Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles would take toward the U.S. mainland, making it a critical node for early warning and missile interception. The Pituffik Space Base on the island already gives the U.S. a strategic foothold, but Washington is pushing for more as missile and space-based threats become more diverse and sophisticated. Trump has explicitly been tying control of Greenland to the Golden Dome for America—a layered missile defense system analogous to Israel’s Iron Dome, designed to detect and destroy ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles, with Greenland serving as the key ground station for the system. The Trump administration has laid out the plan to construct it before the end of Trump’s second term, but the exact timeline is undecided yet. Under the 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement signed during the Cold War, the U.S. already has the legal right to build and operate facilities, station forces, and control the movements of ships and aircraft in and around those areas. What the U.S. has to grapple with is how far, how fast, and through what means it is willing to upgrade what it has already built.
China: Building Influence from Within
China approaches Greenland from an entirely different angle. Although it has conducted several joint patrol operations in the Arctic with Moscow, Beijing cannot establish or sustain a military presence on the island. Distance, climate, and logistical barriers make that nearly impossible. Also, China’s priority is focusing on its own backyard: Taiwan and the wider Indo-Pacific. So China’s Arctic strategy rests on economic statecraft: quietly building leverage from within. By referring to itself as a “near-Arctic state,” Beijing is trying to create the groundwork for a more active role in shaping the region’s future, using this label to justify its involvement in Arctic governance and development. Beijing’s strategic blueprint is blending investment, commercial partnerships, and infrastructure projects to accumulate influence without getting dragged into direct confrontation. China has consistently shown interest in the island’s mining sector, especially projects related to rare earths and other critical minerals. For example, in 2016, China’s Shenghe Resources bought a stake in the mining company Greenland Minerals and Energy, aiming to extract rare earth metals and uranium at the large Kvanefjeld deposit in the south of the island. If Beijing can expand its influence upstream and extract more from the island, it would gain a clear comparative advantage over the West on critical minerals supply. It would also place China in a better position to tap into the broader Polar Silk Road (PSR), which is the extended version of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), stretching into the Arctic. The ultimate goal of the PSR is to map out shipping routes, infrastructure, and resources and integrate them into a China-centered network. However, Beijing’s ambitions have so far fallen short as it faces pushback from American and Danish stakeholders. For example, several Chinese investment bids have failed to materialize due to Danish export restrictions and direct political pressure from Washington and Copenhagen.
Russia: Controlling the Routes
Russia’s Arctic strategy is more straightforward: control the geography. Moscow views the Arctic—especially the Northern Sea Route (NSR)—as central to its national security and global power projection. It already controls the coastline that matters most for the NSR, having spent years building military presence and infrastructure to back that up, such as expanded Arctic bases, upgraded airfields, deployed advanced air defense systems, and the world’s largest icebreaker fleet, including nuclear-powered vessels. Since the Ukraine War, with Chinese assistance, Russia is also ramping up its naval and air activity across the High North and the North Atlantic to counter NATO, with patrols, exercises, and submarine activity that move through the broader Arctic corridor. Beyond the Northern Sea Route, Russia has also been quietly building influence at Svalbard, a Norwegian-controlled archipelago sitting right next to Greenland in the High Arctic. Through state-linked companies, Russian infrastructure, and security-sector personnel on the ground, Moscow has gradually pushed the boundaries of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which prohibits military bases but leaves enough room for hybrid activities like paramilitary exercises, symbolic flag-raising, and a presence that directly challenges NATO’s footing in the region.
Denmark’s Dilemma
Greenland formally belongs to Denmark, which means decisions made by Copenhagen still directly shape who gets access and on what terms. The 2024 Arctic strategy policy document acknowledges that Greenland is indeed moving toward greater autonomy and emphasizes the importance of making the island into a zone of peace while strengthening critical infrastructure. However, the reality is far from what the document envisions, as Greenland faces structural constraints—it needs more investment, infrastructure, and capacity to fully take advantage of its own resources. From Denmark’s perspective, this creates a dilemma. It can choose to align more closely with Washington, which might be a better option for security and long-term stability. Or it can reach out to outside capital and resources, which offer cheaper and possibly faster development but come with security risks. With U.S.-Chinese competition intensifying and the Trump administration constantly applying pressure on Denmark to hand over Greenland to Washington, the bilateral relationship between Washington and Copenhagen is becoming increasingly strained, adding more complexity to Denmark’s calculus. A recent report that came out by the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) labeled the U.S. as a potential security concern for the first time, pointing out that the U.S. is “using economic power and no longer rules out the use of military force to enforce its will, even to its allies.” The window for navigating this on their own terms may be closing faster than they anticipate. Therefore, before making a strategic decision, Copenhagen should weigh the costs and benefits of each choice and should go on with the path that best protects both Denmark’s and Greenland’s security and interests.
The Bottom Line
Greenland is not just a frozen island on the edge of the map anymore. It is rapidly transforming into an area where the economic and security ambitions of the world’s major powers converge—and the stakes are only going to rise from here. The U.S., China, and Russia each have different incentives and approaches, but they’re all going after the same thing: more influence and leverage over Greenland and the broader Arctic region. In the near term, the U.S. will focus on locking in a stronger physical footprint on the island. But the Trump administration’s current playbook risks being counterproductive. Washington cannot expand its position in the region while treating European partners—especially Denmark—as obstacles to be pressured into submission. Taking a clear-eyed realist lens doesn’t mean “might makes right” everywhere and at all times. In a region like the Arctic, where access, legitimacy, and long-term stability depend on working closely with partners, leaning too heavily on intimidation—especially toward NATO allies—risks backfiring and weakening the very position Washington is aiming to establish.
On the other side, China and Russia will continue to deepen their partnership in the Arctic based on their overlapping interests of slowly eroding U.S. influence in the region. Russia will operate at a macro-level by tightening its grip over the Northern Sea Route by expanding its military and infrastructure footprint across the High North, while also testing the limits at Svalbard. China will work underneath that, looking for ways to utilize its resources through Arctic forums, multilateral channels, and indirect investment. Going forward, this coordination dynamic will show up more clearly through more joint patrols, more Chinese capital and infrastructure projects flowing into the region, and Russia trying to expand its operational space. That competition is already underway and is only going to intensify. The question is who comes up with better strategies and executes them effectively to get there first.
References
Feng, E. (2025, July 23). How China came to rule the world of rare earth elements. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/23/nx-s1-5475137/china-rare-earth-elements
Froman, M. (2026, January 29). Why Greenland matters. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/articles/why-greenland-matters
Garding, S. E. (2026, January 22). Greenland, Denmark, and U.S. relations (IN12643). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12643
Gronholt-Pedersen, J., & Fouche, G. (2022, November 16). Arctic security and Russia’s Northern Sea Route strategy. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ARCTIC-SECURITY/zgvobmblrpd/
Humpert, M., & Raspotnik, A. (2012, November 27). The future of Arctic shipping along the Transpolar Sea Route. The Arctic Institute. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/future-arctic-shipping-transpolar-sea-route/
Kirk, A., Swan, L., Ahmedzade, T., Symons, H., & Holmes, O. (2026, January 15). Greenland: New shipping routes, hidden minerals – and a frontline between the US and Russia? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/15/greenland-new-shipping-routes-hidden-minerals-and-a-frontline-between-the-us-and-russia
Lamazhapov, E., Stensdal, I., & Heggelund, G. (2023, November 14). China’s Polar Silk Road: Long game or failed strategy? The Arctic Institute. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/china-polar-silk-road-long-game-failed-strategy/
Leicester, J., & The Associated Press. (2026, January 22). The shortest flight path for a nuclear missile between China or Russia and the United States goes directly over Greenland. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2026/01/22/why-is-greenland-important-nuclear-war-what-is-golden-dome/
Lockheed Martin. (n.d.). Golden Dome for America: Revolutionizing U.S. homeland missile defense. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/missile-defense/golden-dome-missile-defense.html
Mackintosh, T. (2026, January 5). ‘We need Greenland’: Trump repeats threat to annex Danish territory. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o
Mortenson, A. & Ronald, I. (2025, December 10). Denmark sees US as a potential security concern. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/10/europe/denmark-intelligence-report-intl
Ruitenberg, R. (2026, January 12). NATO’s Europe commander sees growing Russian, Chinese threat in the Arctic. Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/01/12/natos-europe-commander-sees-growing-russian-chinese-threat-in-arctic/
Schwartz, M., & Baskaran, G. (2026, January 8). Greenland, rare earths, and Arctic security. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security
The White House. (2025, December). National Security Strategy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. (2022). 2022 National defense strategy of the United States of America. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF
U.S. Department of Defense. (2026, January 23). National Defense Strategy. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF
van der Wal, B. (2025, November 27). NATO’s polar pressure point: The Svalbard archipelago and the Russian challenge. The Arctic Institute. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/natos-polar-pressure-point-svalbard-archipelago-russian-challenge/
.svg)