The International Debate Reignited
In recent days, the Venezuelan situation has once again placed a fundamental question at the center of international debate: how far are major powers willing to go when they believe their strategic interests are at stake?
Discussions on sovereignty, resource control, and the legitimacy of intervention have reopened questions that seemed settled after the Cold War’s end. In this climate of tension and increasingly disputed norms, ideas once considered outlandish are now circulating more naturally in political discourse.
The U.S. Interest in Greenland
Recently, after targeting some Venezuelan assets and detaining Nicolás Maduro, U.S. President Donald Trump made his interest clear: “We need Greenland for national security reasons.” This statement sparked alarm.
In this context, a question that would have seemed absurd just a few years ago resurfaces: could the U.S. attempt to acquire Greenland? The question isn’t born out of thin air; it’s part of an international scenario where the competition for strategic resources and control over key spaces is regaining prominence.
Legal and Political Obstacles
The possibility of the U.S. acquiring Greenland is limited due to clear legal obstacles. Since 2009, it has enjoyed extensive self-governance within the Danish Kingdom. Any change in sovereignty requires the population’s consent, a principle protected by international law.
Additionally, there are significant political limitations. Unilateral pressure would not only harm relations with Denmark but also affect its allies. Denmark is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Internal conflict would weaken the alliance at a time of high global competition.
European Response
In this scenario, the European Union has reacted in a coordinated manner. Recently, several member states signed a joint statement of support for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, emphasizing respect for sovereignty, self-determination, and an international order based on norms.
This joint position coexists, however, with a structural reality that’s hard to ignore. European security depends heavily on the U.S., both in military capabilities and strategic deterrence. Many member states lack sufficient means to ensure their defense without U.S. support, limiting their political autonomy.
This dependence explains the cautious tone of the European response. The EU aims to support Greenland and Denmark without opening a rift with its primary security guarantor. Balancing principles and strategic realism thus becomes one of the current major challenges.
A Long-standing Interest
During his first term, Donald Trump publicly expressed interest in the island. Those statements surprised allies and analysts, reopening a debate where geography, resources, and power converge.
Today, this debate returns with more force. The Arctic is rapidly changing due to global warming, and Greenland occupies a central position in this process.
Natural Resources
Greenland’s importance is primarily due to its natural resources. Its seabed holds significant, untapped reserves of gas and oil that have attracted political attention for years.
The island also hosts strategic minerals, including copper, nickel, zinc, and uranium. All are essential for energy and technological industries.
However, the biggest attraction is the rare earths. Greenland holds about 1.5 million tons. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, these reserves include lanthanides, scandium, and titanium.
Availability of these elements—crucial for batteries, renewable energy, and electronic systems—conditions global supply chains. Thus, Greenland’s international importance grows.
Strategically Positioned
Greenland’s geographical position enhances its strategic importance, as it lies along the Arctic’s northwest and central shipping routes. Melting ice allows year-round use.
If these routes solidify, maritime trade will become faster. Distances between Asia, Europe, and North America will shrink, altering traditional trade flows.
Greenland could then serve as a logistical support hub. Its territory would facilitate supply and maintenance tasks, increasing its economic and strategic value.
From a military perspective, the island’s central position between North America, Russia, and Europe is significant. It also controls access between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic, impacting maritime and aerial security and polar surveillance.
Key Piece in U.S. Security
As mentioned earlier, in 2019, Donald Trump publicly considered buying Greenland, a proposal directed at the Kingdom of Denmark. Although both Denmark and Greenland rejected the idea, the episode revealed a persistent interest. The U.S. has never been indifferent to the island.
The U.S. presence dates back to World War II. During the Cold War, Greenland played a central role in defending the northern hemisphere, a strategic logic still relevant today.
The Thule airbase, still operational, is part of an early warning and anti-missile defense system. Its function is directly linked to U.S. security. The base’s continuity demonstrates that the interest isn’t fleeting; it’s part of a long-term strategic vision. Greenland remains a key piece.
Beyond Trump
However, the Greenland debate extends beyond Donald Trump. It reflects a profound shift in international policy where geography regains centrality.
Arctic melting opens new routes and opportunities while intensifying rivalry among powers, giving political value to strategic resources.
Despite the media frenzy, Greenland is not Venezuela. A U.S. annexation of Greenland is unlikely, but the current situation shows how international debate limits are changing. Thus, the Arctic solidifies as a key scenario in the 21st century.
