In recent days, the Venezuelan case has once again placed a fundamental question at the center of the international debate: how far are the great powers willing to go when they consider that their strategic interests are at stake?
Discussions on sovereignty, control of resources and legitimacy of intervention have reopened questions that seemed resolved after the end of the Cold War. In this climate of tension and increasingly disputed norms, ideas that were previously considered implausible begin to circulate more naturally in political discourse.
Recently, and after attacking some enclaves in Venezuela and arresting Nicolás Maduro, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has made his interests very clear: “We need Greenland for reasons of national security.” The alarms have gone off.
It is in this context that a question reappears that, just a few years ago, would have seemed absurd: could the United States try to take over Greenland? The question does not arise out of nowhere. It is part of an international scenario in which competition for strategic resources and control of key spaces once again occupy a central place.
The possibility of the United States acquiring Greenland is very limited, as there are clear legal obstacles. Since 2009, it has enjoyed extensive self-government within the kingdom of Denmark. Any change in sovereignty requires the consent of its population, a principle protected by international law.
There are also relevant political limits. Unilateral pressure would not only damage the relationship with Denmark, but would also affect all of its allies. We must not forget that Denmark is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). An internal conflict would weaken the alliance at a time of high global competition.
The European response
Faced with this scenario, the European Union has reacted in a coordinated manner. Recently, several Member States have signed a joint statement supporting Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark in which they underline respect for sovereignty, the principle of self-determination and the rules-based international order. The text seeks to send a clear political signal against any external questioning of the island’s status and reaffirms the European commitment to the stability of the Arctic as a space for cooperation.
This common position coexists, however, with a structural reality that is difficult to ignore. European security depends largely on the United States, both in military capabilities and strategic deterrence. Many member states lack sufficient means to guarantee their defense without American support, which limits their margin of political autonomy.
This dependence helps explain the cautious tone of the European response. The Union seeks to support Greenland and Denmark without opening a gap with its main security guarantor. The balance between principles and strategic realism thus becomes one of the great current challenges.
An interest that comes from afar
During his first term, Donald Trump already publicly expressed his interest in the island. Those statements surprised allies and analysts, and reopened a debate in which geography, resources and power come together.
Today that debate returns with more force. The Arctic is rapidly transforming due to global warming and Greenland occupies a central position in that process.
The interest in Greenland is explained, first of all, by its natural resources. On its seabed there are important untapped oil and gas reserves that have attracted political attention for years.
The island is also home to strategic minerals, including copper, nickel, zinc and uranium. All of them are essential for the energy and technology industry.
But the biggest attraction is the rare earths. Greenland concentrates around 1.5 million tons. According to the United States Geological Survey, these reserves include lanthanides, scandium and yttrium.
The availability of these elements – key for batteries, renewable energies and electronic systems – conditions global supply chains. For this reason, the island gains weight in international competition.
Strategically located
Greenland’s geographical position reinforces its strategic importance, as the island is situated along the northwestern and central Arctic shipping routes. The thaw allows its use for more months of the year.
If these routes are consolidated, maritime trade will be faster. Distances between Asia, Europe and North America will shrink, disrupting traditional trade flows.
Greenland could then act as a logistical support point. Its territory would facilitate supply and maintenance tasks, a function that would increase its economic and strategic value.
And from a military perspective, the island occupies a central position: it lies between North America, Russia and Europe. In addition, it controls access between the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic. This control has implications for maritime and air security and influences the surveillance of polar space. Therefore, Greenland remains relevant for Western defense.
Key piece in American security
As I said above, in 2019, Donald Trump already publicly raised the possibility of buying Greenland, a proposal that was addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark. Although both Denmark and Greenlandic authorities rejected the idea, the episode revealed persistent interest. The United States has never been a stranger to the island.
The American presence dates back to World War II. During the Cold War, Greenland played a central role in the defense of the northern hemisphere, a strategic logic that remains in force.
The Thule air base, which remains operational, is part of the early warning and missile defense system. Its function is directly linked to American security. The continuity of this base shows that the interest is not temporary: it responds to a long-term strategic vision. Greenland continues to be a key piece.
Beyond Trump
But the debate over Greenland goes beyond Donald Trump. It reflects a profound change in international politics where geography once again occupies a central place.
The melting of the Arctic opens new routes and opportunities and, at the same time, intensifies the rivalry between powers, gaining political value from strategic resources.
Despite the media hype these days, Greenland is not Venezuela. An annexation of Greenland by the United States is unlikely, but the current situation shows how the limits of the international debate are changing. Thus, the Arctic is consolidated as one of the key scenarios of the 21st century.
Ana Belén López Tárraga, Researcher in the Territory, Innovation and Development Research Group (TEIDE), University of Salamanca
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.
