Greenland at the Crossroads: What the Arctic Territory Really Wants

By Deborah Bouchez

Source: zefart, Shutterstock

Greenland is in the spotlight, and it is not the first time the Arctic territory has been appraised for its geostrategic location. Greenland, a buffer zone between the US, Europe, and Russia, was instrumental in the US strategy during World War II and the Cold War. Today, Greenland is again at the centre of global interest, not just for its melting glaciers and mineral wealth, but for its place in the emerging security architecture of the 21st century.

In 2019, then U.S. President Donald Trump stunned the world by expressing interest in buying Greenland, a self-governing territory in Denmark. The proposal, quickly dismissed by Danish and Greenlandic officials as absurd, nevertheless signalled the strategic urgency the U.S. attaches to the region. Though it was treated as a diplomatic misstep at the time, Trump’s idea resurrected long-standing American interests in Greenland. This place has hosted key U.S. military installations since World War II.

But Greenland is not just a pawn on a geopolitical chessboard. Its people are increasingly asking a critical question: What does Greenland want? The answer, it turns out, is complex and increasingly assertive.

Greenland’s Strategic Significance

Greenland’s location makes it a military asset. During World War II, the U.S. established air bases to monitor the North Atlantic and transport supplies to Europe. This presence continued into the Cold War, with the most prominent installation being Pituffik Air Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key part of the U.S. early warning system against Soviet missiles.

Today, as Arctic ice recedes, new shipping lanes open and competition over rare-earth resources intensifies. Russia has ramped up military activity in the Arctic, and China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state.” NATO, too, has renewed interest in the region. Greenland’s geographic location, again, becomes not just relevant but crucial in shaping North Atlantic security policy.

The U.S.-Greenland Relationship: A Complicated Partnership

The U.S. has long maintained a strategic but transactional relationship with Greenland. The 1951 defence agreement between the U.S. and Denmark allows American military presence in Greenland, particularly at Pituffik Air Base. However, the arrangement has often sidelined local Greenlandic authorities. For decades, many Greenlanders viewed U.S. activity as imposed, offering little benefit to local communities while generating environmental and political tension.

That changed in recent years. In 2020, the U.S. reopened a consulate in Nuuk, the capital, for the first time since the 1950s, demonstrating growing diplomatic engagement. The U.S. has also increased aid and economic cooperation, particularly after Denmark rejected China’s interest in funding Greenlandic airport infrastructure, citing national security concerns. However, recent sharp reductions in U.S. Arctic funding, combined with renewed and aggressive rhetoric, risk jeopardising the fragile trust and momentum that had been building.

The Danish Connection: A History of Tension

Greenland remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, although it gained home rule in 1979 and self-government in 2009, allowing for near-complete domestic autonomy. Denmark retains control over defence, foreign policy, and currency.

But Greenlandic society has increasingly leaned toward full independence. Many Inuit Greenlanders view Danish colonial history with a sense of ambivalence and at times resentment, particularly over past policies of cultural assimilation and economic dependency. The feeling is mutual in political terms as Greenlanders often criticise Copenhagen for making decisions affecting the island without meaningful consultation.

Nonetheless, Denmark remains a critical economic partner. It provides about 3.9 billion Danish kroner annually in subsidies, amounting to about 20% of Greenland’s public budget. For independence to become viable, Greenland must reduce this economic dependence, possibly by developing its natural resource sector.

The Pulse of the People: Recent Elections and Sovereignty Sentiments

The 2021 parliamentary elections in Greenland offered a clear window into how Greenlanders view their future. The Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), a left-wing, pro-environment, and pro-independence party, won most seats. One of the key issues was a controversial uranium and rare-earth mining project backed by a Chinese company. IA’s victory was seen as rejecting hasty economic exploitation, favouring more cautious, sovereign-minded development.

This electoral outcome reaffirmed that Greenlanders increasingly want agency over their future. While full independence is not yet imminent, the trajectory is becoming increasingly defined. Nearly two-thirds of Greenlanders now support eventual independence, reflecting a deepening public consensus around greater political autonomy. The 2025 general elections further confirmed this shift, with a coalition of pro-independence and nationalist parties winning a clear majority in Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament. This electoral outcome reinforces a growing mandate for local leaders to pursue expanded control over natural resources, foreign relations, and, ultimately, the island’s political destiny.

Security and Sovereignty: The Road Ahead

Security, for Greenland, is not just about American air bases or Danish defence agreements. It concerns climate resilience, economic security, resource sovereignty, and cultural preservation. As the Arctic becomes more militarised, Greenland faces the challenge of maintaining neutrality without becoming isolated or exploited.

One possible model for Greenland could be something akin to Iceland, another Arctic nation with close NATO ties but an independent foreign policy. Another path could be closer cooperation with indigenous and Arctic councils, emphasising soft-power diplomacy and environmental leadership.

Ultimately, Greenland wants to be heard and have the power to decide its destiny. That means stronger institutions, diversified economic development, and a foreign policy that reflects Greenlandic, rather than Danish or American priorities.

Conclusion: A Nation in the Making

Greenland’s future lies in balancing old alliances with new realities. While Denmark and the U.S. will remain essential partners, Greenland is charting a course that centres its own voice and interests. The global powers circling the Arctic would do well to recognise that this massive island is no longer just a stepping stone in strategic policy. Instead, it is an emerging actor with its own ambitions.

Whether the world is ready to listen is another matter. But one thing is clear: Greenland is no longer waiting for permission.

---

Deborah is a Master of International Relations student at the University of Queensland, passionate about strategic policy, defense cooperation, and the shifting balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. Her academic interests lie in how middle powers like Australia navigate alliance politics, regional security, and great-power competition. With extensive cross-cultural experience living and studying abroad, she brings a global lens to questions of diplomacy, influence, and international order. Through her writing for the Young Diplomats Society, Deborah explores how policy is shaped not just by power, but by people: connecting big-picture strategy with the human stories that underpin global affairs.