Arctic Geopolitics and Greenland: Power, Security, and Geopolitics

Dr. Jahangir Alam Sarker :

The recent political crisis in Venezuela, and the active role of the United States therein, signals a broad transformation in Washington’s strategic posture in international politics.

This intervention is not merely a reactive response to a regional crisis; rather, it should be seen as part of a deeper reassessment of U.S. foreign and security policy within the broader context of global power reconfiguration.

The administration of President Donald Trump increasingly presents a vision of a world where territory, spheres of influence, and strategic control are once again central to international politics.

In this changing reality, the United States is now focusing on geographical regions that were previously considered peripheral but are acquiring growing strategic importance amid contemporary global shifts.

Climate change, technological advancement, and the multidimensional expansion of security threats have transformed these regions into new arenas of power competition.

The Arctic region—particularly Greenland—has emerged as a critical focal point in this reconfigured geopolitical map.

U.S. interest in Greenland should therefore not be viewed as an isolated diplomatic remark or a short-term political maneuver. Instead, it represents a long-term strategic consideration in the context of emerging power competition, restructuring of security architecture, and control over natural resources in the Arctic.

Located at the intersection of the Atlantic and Arctic, Greenland is becoming increasingly indispensable for maritime route management, missile early-warning systems, and future military and technological deployments.

At the same time, Greenland’s geopolitical significance is further complicated by the growing presence and interest of China and Russia.

Their investments in Arctic infrastructure, scientific research, and strategic cooperation raise new security and influence-related questions for the United States and its allies. Consequently, Greenland is no longer merely a geographic entity; it has become a sensitive junction in a multi polar power competition.

In this context, the present article, ‘Arctic Geopolitics and Greenland: Power, Security, and Geopolitics,’ aims to analyze U.S. interest in Greenland, the regional and global power dynamics, and the potential implications for existing international security structures.

The analysis seeks to understand the complex interplay between national interests, strategic calculations, and diplomatic boundaries to provide a clear picture of the emerging geopolitical reality surrounding the Arctic.

While President Donald Trump’s remarks on Greenland during his first term received widespread attention in international forums, they were often dismissed as political exaggeration or unexpected diplomatic rhetoric.

However, recent high-level diplomatic communications, symbolic visits, policy statements, and security-related signals clearly indicate that the Greenland issue has become a structural element of the United States’ broader geopolitical strategy. This reflects an increasingly evident long-term strategic repositioning of the United States in the Arctic.

European Union countries and NATO members, particularly Denmark, reaffirm Greenland’s sovereignty, yet they also recognize the changing reality that the Arctic region is rapidly becoming a center of international power competition.

The retreat of permanent ice cover due to climate change is opening new maritime routes, increasing opportunities for natural resource extraction, and multiplying the potential for expanded military presence. In this context, Greenland is evolving into a multidimensional strategic asset rather than merely a landmass.

Statements from the highest levels of the U.S. administration reveal a clear inclination toward a “power-centric world order,” which fundamentally contrasts with the normative frameworks of the liberal international system. In this perspective, security, influence, and control are closely intertwined, and territorial location is increasingly seen as a legitimate instrument of power.

Therefore, the U.S. stance on Greenland should not be interpreted solely as a matter of security; it is also a clear geopolitical signal reflecting the rebalancing of regional and global power.

Historically, Greenland has been an important part of the Atlantic security architecture. During the Second World War, it played a crucial role in protecting maritime communications and convoy routes. In the contemporary context, it occupies a critical strategic position for missile early-warning systems, Arctic surveillance capabilities, and potential future military deployments. The existing U.S. military presence operates within NATO frameworks, reflecting continuity in collective security arrangements.

This raises a fundamental question: if U.S. concern is genuinely about security, the existing alliance frameworks and bilateral agreements should suffice to achieve that goal. Denmark is a long-standing close U.S. ally, and Greenland is part of NATO’s security sphere. In such a situation, creating overt pressure regarding sovereignty could generate unnecessary diplomatic risk and undermine trust among allies.

At the same time, Greenland’s natural resources—particularly untapped oil, gas, and rare minerals—hold strategic significance for future technologies, renewable energy, and defense industries.

The growing interest of China and Russia further complicates this competition. However, international practice emphasizes participatory and multilateral frameworks for resource extraction and management as the most legitimate and sustainable path. Any unilateral attempt to assert control or influence could challenge international legitimacy.

The Greenland issue primarily reflects the broader strategic mindset of the Trump administration, wherein influence, resource control, and historical legacy are intertwined. This trend signals a notable departure from the United States’ traditional diplomatic rhetoric and its legacy of multilateral leadership.

Reactions from European powers, Canada’s cautious stance, and internal NATO concerns collectively indicate that Greenland is not merely about determining the future of an island; it represents a profound and far-reaching test of the balance of power in the Arctic, the credibility of alliance systems, and the stability of the international rules-based order.

Overall, Greenland today is no longer just a geographic entity or an ice-covered island; it is a significant symbol of emerging power competition and strategic realignment in contemporary global politics. Its position in the Arctic points toward an international reality in which security, influence, and strategic control increasingly risk surpassing diplomatic restraint and multilateral coordination.

In this context, strengthening diplomatic dialogue, mutual trust, and multilateral cooperation has become imperative for the international community.

Any unilateral or power-centric move in the Arctic could not only destabilize the region but also have long-term negative repercussions for the global security architecture.

Thus, the Greenland issue carries a clear message for the contemporary world order: the future of international politics in this phase of power resurgence will depend on how responsibly states can manage and control strategic competition through diplomacy. The Arctic, and particularly Greenland, has become one of the principal arenas for this test.

(The writer is an Advocate and Researcher
E-mail: [email protected])