From ice to power: why Greenland is no longer a remote place

In the space of just a decade, Greenland has gone from being one of the most overlooked territories on the planet to becoming a central piece on the global geopolitical chessboard. The melting of the Arctic ice has opened up new sea routes that drastically shorten trade routes between the Atlantic and the Pacific, has reinforced its position as a strategic ‘chokepoint’ for Western defence and has turned the spotlight on a subsoil rich in rare earth elements, which are essential for 21st-century technology and security. Against this backdrop, an island four times the size of Spain, inhabited by barely 55,000 people and formally part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has become a source of silent friction between the United States, China and their allies. To understand Greenland today is to understand how climate change, technology and geopolitics are redrawing the map of global power.

12 January 2026 Reading time: 6 minutes 5 seconds

When I first considered writing about the issue of Greenland, my first concern was where to begin. I am aware that, apart from those with an interest in or involvement in geopolitics, it is perhaps one of the least well-known parts of the planet. So I decided to start at the beginning.

We must go back to 982, when the Norwegian Viking Erik the Red, who had been exiled to Iceland, settled on this island. Curiously, he called that frozen island ‘Greenland’ (which is what it is called in English). In 1261, Greenland became part of Norway, and in 1380, following the dynastic union between Norway and Denmark, it became part of Denmark.

In 172, the Danes began their actual colonisation of the island, with the aim of evangelising the island’s indigenous population, the Inuit. In 1953, it ceased to be a colony and became part of the Kingdom of Denmark. In 1979, it gained full autonomy, and in 2009, its right to self-determination was recognised. Bear this in mind, as it is an important part of the current issue.

Today, Denmark retains control only over its defence, foreign policy, currency and a small part of the judicial system. This is why, technically speaking, we could regard the Inuit people as the owners of the land – sovereign over their own lands.

Why is a territory four times the size of Spain controlled by a country whose area is less than 10 per cent of Spain’s? And which, moreover, lies at a distance roughly equivalent to that between Madrid and Moscow?

What is so significant about such a vast, uninhabited territory – one that, above all, is mostly frozen all year round? What is it about Greenland that has suddenly brought it to the forefront of discussions in the world’s leading foreign ministries?

Well, something that wasn’t important before but is now. One is climate change and the other is the technology that is now taking over our lives.

Since the late 2010s, climate change has caused the ice in the so-called “Northwest Passage” to melt, opening up a temporary window each year for navigation along the maritime route connecting the North Atlantic with the Pacific.

This step saves between 2,000 and 8,000 km (I’m not talking about nautical miles, otherwise some of you will call me even more of a geek than I already am) of sailing, depending on the routes. In other words, you can save up to 15 days’ sailing on the longest route. On commercial routes, this isn’t just time – it’s a lot of money. And in military terms, it’s worth nothing.

This route does not pass through Greenlandic waters. In fact, the waters it crosses are disputed. The Canadians consider them to be theirs, as they form part of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The US and the EU consider that these waters are governed by international maritime law as international waters, as they are navigable passages between islands.

Greenland is key to this route as it is the natural point of entry and exit. It provides control over access from the North Atlantic, the Labrador Sea and the Davis Strait.

“If China were to take control of Greenland’s mining sector, it would definitively control the mining of rare-earth elements now and in the future”

In addition to its logistical role, Greenland has ‘exclusive’ responsibility for maritime and aerial surveillance. The logistical, rescue, supply and control capabilities relating to the Northwest Passage give Greenland a dominant geopolitical position, which it did not have less than ten years ago.

The other route that opens up every year as the ice melts is the so-called Northern Sea Route, which runs along the Russian Arctic coast, connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific. This route is effectively closed, as travelling along it requires the use of Russian infrastructure, the hiring of Russian escorts, and a Russian navigation permit.

Due to increasing ice melt during the summer, it is estimated that a third route will open between 2030 and 2040. Here, Greenland will play an even more decisive role, if that is possible, due to its proximity and the necessary onshore infrastructure. This third route is the Transpolar Route, which will cross the international waters of the central Arctic.

For all these reasons, given its geostrategic position in the Arctic, it has been dubbed the ‘chokepoint’ of the Arctic and the North Atlantic. It is the geographical pivot between North America, Europe and the Arctic. In other words, it plays the same role as the Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz or the Panama Canal – geographical chokepoints which, in order to save time and money, offer no alternative.

For the US, it is of critical importance from a military perspective. From its Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule), which serves as an early-warning radar station, it monitors air routes and the trajectories of ballistic and hypersonic missiles between Russia and the US. This base is key to the defence of the GIUK Gap (Greenland–Iceland–UK), which is essential for naval control of the North Atlantic.

And finally, we come to the third reason for its geostrategic importance: its subsoil.

Allow me, dear reader, to make a brief aside for those who have not yet read my work or for those who may have forgotten. Rare-earth elements are simply natural mineral deposits that have been well known for many years. In fact, their atomic numbers on the periodic table range from 57 to 71 out of 118. They are called ‘rare-earth elements’ because it is very rare to find them in the purity required for their current applications.

Today, of the world’s known rare-earth reserves, China holds approximately 50 per cent, Brazil 23 per cent, and the remainder is widely scattered amongst various countries. However, China currently produces approximately 70 per cent of the world’s rare-earth minerals and refines practically 90 per cent of the total. This makes it the main – and virtually the only – player in this sector.

China’s main weapon is not a nuclear weapon; it is its control over one of the key raw materials used to manufacture chips. Chips that are found everywhere in our daily lives.

“Greenland has been classified as a chokepoint solely because of climate change”

Well then, back to Greenland. It is estimated, with a high degree of certainty, that the reserves of these metals beneath the island’s surface could amount to around 10 per cent of global reserves.

As we can see, this is a gigantic, frozen island in the middle of an inhospitable region, which in recent years has become a strategic location on the globe. And not for just one reason, but for several – each one more important than the last.

Over the years, Denmark has pursued a low-key, legal and institutional strategy to retain effective control of the island. It has introduced legislation and made investments with the aim of replacing Chinese capital, which is constantly seeking to increase its influence on the island through trade agreements and substantial investments.

And this is where the Americans believe – and perhaps quite rightly so – that Denmark has done far too little on an island that is strategically important to them. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, since 2009, the indigenous population, the Inuit, have had the legal right to declare their independence. And that is what the Americans fear most.

And although China refrains from publicly supporting the island’s independence, it quietly encourages it.

The Americans believe that Greenland must not take any steps that could lead to a Chinese or Russian presence, even if only partial. They also believe that, just as the Russians do, all Arctic maritime traffic within Greenland’s sphere of influence should be obstructed. They regard the current legal situation as a threat to their interests. These interests are wide-ranging, as they have already proposed carrying out mining activities with a view to exploiting Greenland’s rare earth elements.

“For the US, Greenland is not its back garden; it is a strategic location which is currently administered by Denmark, without the control that might be expected given the current climate of international tension.”

How could a conflict within NATO be avoided without anyone being harmed? Firstly, by changing the island’s legal status, preventing it from declaring independence, and reducing its autonomy.

Secondly, by restricting logistical support for shipping from non-allied countries.

Thirdly, by allowing new NATO bases to be established on the island.

And finally, and quite clearly, by banning mining by any company that is not from an allied country. But of course, this must be accompanied by sufficient investment to improve the quality of life of the approximately 55,000 inhabitants.

Some readers will say, quite rightly, that nations are free to determine their own destiny. But it is no less reasonable to argue that free and democratic nations must not allow other nations – where neither freedom nor democracy exists – to take advantage of these rights. And I will name names: Russia and China.

I don’t like Trump. I don’t like a single thing about him, but it seems that one of his advisers is the first to have realised that do-goodism, ‘woke’ theories and all that nonsense only serve to allow our potential enemies to shamelessly take advantage of us. A Spanish politician once said that on certain issues we’re more quixotic than Don Quixote himself. In other words, we believe our own rhetoric so much that it actually makes us look like fools.

Let us hope that our politicians, who have been characterised by anything but intelligence – whether emotional or strategic – are able to act promptly and sensibly, thereby preventing a conflict now with our allies or in the future with our potential enemies.