Geopolitical Game under Ice Melt: How Greenland Became a New Focus of Great Power Rivalry

In the meeting room in Washington, the air seemed colder than the Arctic wind. In the early winter, Danish Foreign Minister Rasmussen and Greenland's Foreign Minister Møtzfeldt sat across from U.S. Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio, with a "fundamental disagreement" looming between them—President Donald Trump's insistence that the United States "take over" Greenland. By the end of the meeting, both sides had agreed to establish a working group, but this felt more like pressing pause on a crisis that could shake the foundations of NATO rather than resolving the issue.

Almost simultaneously, Copenhagen announced it would strengthen its military presence in the Arctic and the North Atlantic. European allies such as Germany, France, Norway, and Sweden promptly responded by symbolically deploying small numbers of troops to Greenland. These actions were officially described as responses to Arctic security challenges, but it was clear to observers that European nations were sending a subtle signal to Washington: Greenland is not territory for sale, and NATO unity must not be undermined.

Greenland, the world's largest island, has long been a vast white wilderness on the map. Today, climate change is altering its destiny at an astonishing rate—the melting ice sheet is not only opening up potential new shipping routes to Asia but also making critical mineral resources such as rare earths, cobalt, and nickel, long buried beneath the surface, increasingly accessible. The strategic value of this land is being redefined, and the attention of major powers has shifted from scientific exploration to overt geopolitical competition.

Wealth Beneath the Ice: The Dual Allure of Resources and Shipping Lanes

The Greenland ice sheet covers approximately % of the entire island, with an average thickness exceeding . kilometers. However, over the past three decades, the rate of ice loss here has increased sixfold. Satellite imagery from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reveals that the summer sea ice extent in Greenland has shrunk to a record low, exposing more bare land and open water.

This physical change has brought about two direct strategic consequences. First is the commercial prospects of the Northwest Passage. This Arctic route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans can theoretically shorten the voyage between East Asia and Europe by approximately 40%, significantly reducing shipping costs and time. Although year-round navigation still requires time, the summer navigation window is extending year by year. For major trading nations like China, Japan, and South Korea, this route signifies a potential revolution in supply chains; for Canada, which controls the coastline, and Denmark, which governs Greenland, it represents the significant economic allure of sovereignty over the waterway and the right to levy fees.

More direct benefits come from beneath the surface. According to data from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, the island may possess one of the world's largest deposits of rare earth elements, along with abundant reserves of critical minerals essential to modern technology industries, such as cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, lead, and uranium. China currently controls approximately % of global rare earth mining and % of processing capacity, a monopoly that has caused significant unease among Western economies. If Greenland's mineral resources are developed, they could reshape the global supply chain landscape.

On multiple occasions, Trump has emphasized: "We need Greenland for national security." The "national security" he refers to encompasses multiple layers of meaning: ensuring the supply of critical minerals does not rely on adversaries, controlling emerging trade routes, and maintaining U.S. military superiority in the Arctic. However, Greenlanders have a starkly different interpretation. -year-old Maya Martinson told reporters on the streets of Nuuk that Trump is "basically lying," and what he truly wants is "our untouched oil and minerals." This gap in perception is one of the core contradictions at the heart of the current crisis.

NATO's Survival Crisis: When the Protector Becomes the Threat

Trump's persistent pursuit of Greenland has plunged NATO into the most bizarre dilemma since its founding in 1949. This organization, built on the cornerstone of collective defense, is facing for the first time a chilling possibility: its most powerful member state might launch a de facto annexation against another member.

Article 5 of NATO's collective defense clause clearly stipulates that an armed attack against any member state shall be considered an attack against all member states. This clause has only been invoked once in history—after September 11, 2001. However, its framers never envisioned that an attack could come from within the alliance, especially from the leader who provides 70% of the alliance's military budget.

Nicole Covi, a researcher at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, analyzed: "NATO has experienced tensions among its members in the past, but there is no precedent for an actual attack within the alliance. After all, if allies want to maintain any positive relationship, they should not attack each other—this is an established norm." Her concerns have resonated widely. Gail Revaid-Peish, the institute's executive director, stated bluntly: "If the United States were to attack a NATO ally, it would be the end of the alliance. I don’t see how the alliance could survive such an event."

European diplomats have used stronger language in private conversations. An Eastern European official described the potential U.S. military takeover as "a seismic event that risks destroying NATO." Such concerns are not unfounded—if the United States can annex Denmark's autonomous territory for strategic interests, how can the Baltic states, Poland, or any other member country trust Washington's security commitments?

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is walking a tightrope in Brussels. He acknowledges that Trump is right to emphasize the need to strengthen Arctic security, while stressing that "when it comes to the Arctic, we must work together as an alliance." However, he refuses to comment directly on Trump's claims regarding Greenland. This caution reflects the awkward position NATO leadership faces: maintaining alliance unity while avoiding public condemnation of its most important member state.

Europe's Response: Symbolic Deployment and Strategic Signaling

Faced with Trump's persistent pressure, European countries have adopted a strategy that demonstrates unity while avoiding direct confrontation. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced the establishment of a "more permanent military presence" in Greenland and invited other NATO allies to participate in rotations. Subsequently, several European countries unveiled symbolic deployment plans:

Germany dispatched a number of reconnaissance personnel.
France has pledged to deploy approximately additional soldiers and enhance its naval and air assets.
Sweden and Norway each dispatched several military personnel.
The United Kingdom dispatched an officer.
Finland dispatches two liaison officers.
The Netherlands dispatched an officer.

These numbers are militarily insignificant. A senior diplomat from a participating country candidly admitted, "These forces cannot stop a U.S. invasion. Absolutely not. So the message needs to be nuanced. It's about showing that we are strengthening Arctic security and that there is more that can be done."

The true value of these deployments lies in their political symbolism. They convey three clear messages to Washington: First, European allies take Arctic security seriously and are willing to invest resources; second, Greenland's security is "a common concern for the entire NATO alliance" (as stated by Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen); third, any unilateral action will face a coordinated European response.

The statement by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is particularly noteworthy. When announcing the deployment, he specifically emphasized: "In our joint reconnaissance activities in Greenland under the leadership of NATO with Denmark, we are coordinating very closely, especially with our American partners." The underlying message of this statement is: European countries are willing to strengthen their presence in the Arctic, but it must be done within the NATO framework and in cooperation with the United States, rather than being excluded or replaced by the U.S.

Meanwhile, France and Canada have announced that they will open consulates in Greenland in the coming weeks. This strengthening of diplomatic presence is also aimed at consolidating direct ties with Greenland, indicating that European countries view Greenland as a political entity worthy of direct engagement, rather than merely a territory administered through Copenhagen.

The Voice of Greenlanders: Dual Demands for Self-Determination and Resource Sovereignty

In Nuuk, the winter days offer only five hours of daylight, yet the city has been exceptionally "illuminated" by the spotlight of international media. Journalists from Associated Press, Reuters, Al Jazeera, as well as reporters from Scandinavian countries and Japan, have crowded the main shopping street, seeking local residents' perspectives on the crisis.

Greenland has a population of approximately 56,000, with about 19,000 people living in Nuuk. This small-scale society means that everyone is likely to be interviewed multiple times. Opposition MP Jørgen Wæver Johansen of Naleraq stated that he was interviewed multiple times a day for two weeks. "We are a small population, and when more and more journalists keep asking the same questions repeatedly, people tend to get tired."

However, beneath the fatigue lies a firm consensus. Whether politicians or ordinary residents, almost everyone emphasizes the same principle: Greenland's future should be decided by the Greenlanders themselves. This demand encompasses two levels: political self-determination (Greenland is currently a highly autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own parliament and government) and sovereign control over natural resources.

Heating engineer Lars Vinter questioned Trump's security narrative in an interview: "The only Chinese people I've seen are when I go to the fast-food market." He frequently goes sailing and hunting but has never seen Russian or Chinese ships. His friend Hans Nørgaard added, "Everything Trump says about all these ships is just fantasy."

Greenlanders' skepticism is supported by data. Danish and Greenlandic authorities have repeatedly stated that the region is not "filled with Chinese and Russian ships" as described by Trump. While commercial shipping and scientific activities in the Arctic are indeed increasing, military presence remains relatively limited and highly transparent. Trump's portrayal of Greenland as an outpost on the verge of being seized by China and Russia shows a clear disconnect from the reality observed locally.

The deeper concern revolves around economic interests. The Greenlandic government is well aware of its resource potential but also understands the vulnerability of a small economy in the global mining market. They wish to develop these resources in a manner most beneficial to themselves and on their own timeline, rather than becoming a bargaining chip in the power struggles of larger nations. Martinson’s words capture this sentiment: “Americans only see what they can get from Greenland, not what it actually is. For us, this is home.”

A New Architecture for Arctic Security: Multilateral Cooperation or Unilateral Dominance?

The Greenland crisis has exposed the fragility of the Arctic governance framework. Currently, Arctic affairs are primarily coordinated through forums such as the Arctic Council, which includes the eight Arctic states (the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland) and representatives from six indigenous organizations. However, the Arctic Council explicitly excludes military security issues, resulting in a lack of formal multilateral platforms for Arctic security dialogue.

Trump's claim on Greenland is essentially a unilateral challenge to the existing Arctic order. He not only questions Denmark's ability to protect its territory but also implies that NATO's current collective defense arrangements are insufficient to address Arctic challenges. This stance forces European countries to ponder a fundamental question: Should Arctic security be achieved by strengthening cooperation within the NATO framework, or by accepting the unilateral dominance that the United States might seek?Trump's claim on Greenland is essentially a unilateral challenge to the existing Arctic order. He not only questions Denmark's ability to protect its territory but also implies that NATO's current collective defense arrangements are insufficient to address Arctic challenges. This stance forces European countries to ponder a fundamental question: Should Arctic security be achieved by strengthening cooperation within the NATO framework, or by accepting the unilateral dominance that the United States might seek?

European countries have clearly chosen the former. Denmark's strengthening of its military presence in Greenland, the joint deployment by multiple nations, and the planned joint exercises are all attempts to demonstrate NATO's ability to ensure Arctic security. Fabrice Pothier, former Director of Policy Planning at NATO and current CEO of Rasmussen Global, pointed out: "NATO can help address the issue by developing a serious Arctic surveillance and deterrence strategy. However, the tensions so far have also undermined its credibility. Trump's stance has introduced doubts about U.S. commitments, doubts that are rarely forgotten."

Russia's reaction, on the other hand, highlights the complexity of the situation from another perspective. Vladimir Barbin, the Russian Ambassador to Denmark, criticized the deployment by European countries, stating, "By bringing NATO into the Arctic, including Greenland, Denmark is promoting a confrontational approach, which always leads to a weakening rather than a strengthening of security in the region." Moscow has consistently advocated that Arctic security should include all countries in the region and opposes NATO's expansion.

China's stance is relatively low-key, but Beijing's interest in Arctic affairs is public. China refers to itself as a "near-Arctic state" and has issued a white paper on Arctic policy, emphasizing scientific research, environmental protection, and sustainable utilization. China's investments in Greenland are primarily focused on scientific research and potential mineral resources, but Western analysts widely believe that Beijing's long-term goal is to expand its presence and influence in the Arctic.

Possible Trajectories of the Crisis: From Confrontation to Adjustment

The resolution to the current Greenland impasse will depend on the interplay of multiple variables. The ultimate intentions of the Trump administration remain unclear—is it genuinely seeking territorial annexation, or using this as leverage to force Europe into making greater concessions on Arctic security and other issues? How long can the unity between Denmark and its European allies be maintained? Can the Greenlanders maintain a consistent stance under pressure?

The working group mechanism preserves space for dialogue. Rasmussen stated after the Washington talks that the group should "focus on how to address U.S. security concerns while respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark." This phrasing hints at a possible direction for compromise: the United States might gain the right to expand its military presence in Greenland (a right it already holds under the 1951 treaty), including upgrading Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base) or establishing new facilities, in exchange for relinquishing territorial claims.The working group mechanism preserves space for dialogue. Rasmussen stated after the Washington talks that the group should "focus on how to address U.S. security concerns while respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark." This phrasing hints at a possible direction for compromise: the United States might gain the right to expand its military presence in Greenland (a right it already holds under the 1951 treaty), including upgrading Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base) or establishing new facilities, in exchange for relinquishing territorial claims.

Denmark has already hinted at this possibility. Rasmussen explicitly stated, "The Kingdom of Denmark has strengthened our own contribution by pledging additional funding for military capabilities. Not dog sleds, but ships and drones—we are prepared to do more." This statement directly responds to Trump's mockery of Denmark for defending Greenland only with dog sleds, and also indicates Copenhagen's willingness to increase investment in security cooperation.

However, any arrangement must respect two "red lines": Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland and the right to self-determination of the Greenlandic people. Greenland's Foreign Minister Múte Bourup Egede emphasized "cooperation with the U.S., not ownership by the U.S.," a stance that will not change.

From a broader perspective, the Greenland crisis may serve as a prelude to a new era in the Arctic. As ice melt accelerates, the region's economic value and strategic significance will only increase. The current confrontation may ultimately prompt all parties to establish a more institutionalized and inclusive Arctic security architecture—perhaps by forming a specialized Arctic security framework within NATO, or by creating new multilateral mechanisms.

But before that, NATO must first overcome its immediate survival crisis. As warned by Danish MEP Anders Vistisen: "Just by talking about doing so, we are endangering the most important security structure built in our lifetime." The ice in Greenland is melting, and the cornerstone of the security alliance that has supported the West for over seventy years also seems to be under unprecedented pressure.

The dawn in the Arctic is always accompanied by prolonged darkness. The future of Greenland, as well as the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic, will depend on whether all parties can find a path of dialogue rather than confrontation in the darkness. Beneath the ice, there lies not only mineral resources but also the future shape of the international order.