- Mineral resources are increasingly seen as vital for modern economies, defense industries
- Analysts warn any attempt by US to seize Greenland by force would have severe consequences for NATO
BRUSSELS
Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, has once again become the focus of geopolitical debate after US President Donald Trump reiterated his interest in taking control of the Arctic island, citing national security concerns.
Greenland covers 2.16 million square kilometers (approximately 0.9 million square miles) and is home to roughly 56,000 people, mostly of Inuit origin. Its population is concentrated along the western coast, with Nuuk serving as the capital. The island is largely covered by ice, and its economy is primarily based on fishing.
While Greenland has pursued greater autonomy from Denmark, including home rule granted in 1979 and self-government in 2009, its foreign and security policies remain under Danish control.
Trump's recent rhetoric has fueled debates about Arctic geopolitics and the island's future, highlighting the region's growing strategic importance in the 21st century.
Where is Greenland?
Greenland occupies a critical position between North America and Europe, sitting astride the so-called GIUK gap, a maritime corridor linking Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom that connects the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic.
The area has long been viewed as strategically vital for monitoring naval and air activity, particularly amid growing competition in the Arctic involving Russia and China.
The US already maintains a military presence on the island through Thule Space Base, a key component of its missile defense and early warning systems.
As climate change accelerates the melting of Arctic ice, Greenland's location is becoming even more significant, with northern shipping routes expected to become navigable for longer periods each year.
What key minerals does Greenland have?
Beyond its geography, Greenland is rich in mineral resources increasingly seen as essential to modern economies and defense industries.
A 2023 survey showed that 25 of the 34 minerals classified as "critical raw materials" by the European Commission are found in Greenland. These include rare earth elements used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, advanced electronics and military equipment.
However, oil and natural gas extraction are banned for environmental reasons, and mining projects often encounter bureaucratic hurdles as well as opposition from indigenous communities.
Three of Greenland's largest rare earth deposits are located in the southern Gardar province, with companies exploring the area. Rare earth elements are essential for electric vehicle motors and wind turbines.
Graphite, used in EV batteries and steelmaking, is widespread, while copper and nickel remain underexplored, with mining company Anglo American holding Western Greenland licenses.
Zinc is mainly found in northern Greenland, with Citronen Fjord among the world’s largest undeveloped zinc-lead deposits, while southern areas around Sermiligaarsuk Fjord host gold, including Amaroq Minerals’ Mt. Nalunaq mine.
Greenland also hosts deposits of diamonds, iron ore, titanium, vanadium, tungsten, and uranium, although uranium mining was banned in 2021, halting projects where uranium appears as a byproduct.
What has Trump said?
Trump first floated the idea of purchasing Greenland during his first term and revived the proposal in late 2024, calling US control of the island "an absolute necessity" for national security.
White House officials have also suggested that the US is "discussing a range of options" to acquire the island, including the use of military force, though Trump has not explicitly committed to such action.
The recent US military operation in Venezuela, which led to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro, has amplified concerns about Trump's foreign policy rhetoric.
In comments after the operation, he again emphasized Greenland's strategic importance, warning that Russian and Chinese activities in the region posed a threat to US security.
His remarks have once again raised tensions with Denmark and other European allies, while reigniting questions over Greenland’s strategic value, its vast natural resources, and its role in Arctic security.
How do Denmark, Greenland react?
Denmark has firmly rejected any US claim on Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stressed that Greenland's residents have repeatedly expressed opposition to joining the United States, warning that any US military action against a NATO ally could undermine the alliance itself.
European leaders, including those from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have expressed support for Denmark, affirming that Arctic security must remain a collective NATO priority.
Greenland's local leadership has similarly condemned US remarks. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen described the idea of US control as "completely unacceptable" and emphasized that any discussions must respect international law and the will of Greenlanders.
According to polls conducted in January 2025, 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States.
What might this mean for NATO?
Analysts warn that any attempt by the US to seize Greenland by force would have severe consequences for the NATO alliance, potentially undermining the principle of collective defense.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that a US military attack on Greenland, which Trump has not ruled out, could fracture the NATO alliance.
Frederiksen said: "If the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II."
Greenland is formally under NATO's security umbrella as part of a member state. Under Article 5, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
However, an offensive by the United States, the alliance's largest military power, against a fellow member would create a scenario without historical precedent. Article 5 presumes mutual defense among members, but there is no mechanism to respond to aggression from the US itself.
In practical terms, NATO could issue political condemnation or impose economic sanctions, but military counteraction is considered virtually unlikely.
