An Ice-Cold War
How Greenland Is Becoming a Pawn in a Geopolitical Game
For the second year in a row, the Arctic is beginning the year with the “Greenland question.” The US president is once again insisting on full control over the island in the name of national security. Greenland has become a central topic in the media and, as observers note, has even pushed the Ukraine negotiations out of the spotlight.
If in 2025 the claims to the island seemed eccentric and were not taken particularly seriously, the public, media, and political response shifted after the operation in Venezuela. The US president earned a reputation as a politician willing to disregard established norms and international law. Now it is the Arctic’s turn.
The Struggle for a “Piece of Ice”
A new round of escalation began on December 21, 2025, when Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry was appointed special envoy of the US president for Greenland. Landry has never worked on Arctic issues, nor does he have experience in international relations. Unsurprisingly, the governments of Denmark and Greenland responded with protests. They stated that the appointment signaled that the US president had not abandoned his intentions, despite earlier calls to respect territorial integrity, including that of NATO allies.
“Greenland is not for sale,” voices from continental Europe and Greenland had insisted at the beginning of 2025—and those words were repeated again at the year’s end. Landry, for his part, actively joined a public campaign to persuade audiences that the president’s claims were justified, though in reality he took no part in any relevant negotiations or meetings.
Statements made in January about the need for US control over the island were driven by fear: if the United States did not take Greenland, it would supposedly fall to China or Russia, whose warships were said to be encircling the island. On January 4, it was claimed that Greenland’s waters were “teeming” with Russian and Chinese vessels. It was also stated at the time that military methods of gaining control over the island could not be ruled out.
Analysts and military commentators systematically dismantled the assumptions underlying these claims. There are no Russian ships around Greenland, and neither Russia nor Russia-linked businesses have any assets on the island. Chinese authorities, for their part, called on observers “not to exaggerate the Chinese threat.”
As for China’s economic involvement, it is currently negligible. China did come close several years ago to gaining control over a significant share of Greenland’s rare earth elements and, in 2018, might have secured airport construction contracts through China Communications Construction Company. But none of this materialized. In the case of rare earths, control remained with Australian companies that are now gradually moving under US jurisdiction. As for the airports, Denmark—after Washington’s intervention—fully financed their modernization itself.
Greenland is indeed rich in resources, but developing deposits, including rare earths, requires substantial investment. Even if the money were found, the combined reserves of Greenland and the United States (1.5 million tons in Greenland and 1.9 million tons in the US) would still be far smaller than those of China (44 million tons) or Brazil (21 million tons). Russia’s reserves are estimated by the US Geological Survey at 3.8 million tons. Broader projections of natural resources may differ, but in any case, economically viable extraction remains a matter for the future—dependent on technology, infrastructure, and environmental conditions.
During the current exchange of statements, Europe and Denmark have repeatedly pointed out that both business and military presence on the island could be expanded within existing agreements—simply by adhering to the 1951 treaty.
Tariff Escalation and the US–European Response
One of the first reactions came from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen who said that if the United States were to “take” Greenland, it would mean the end of NATO. Allies, she argued, cannot exist if one of them does not take another’s territorial integrity seriously. Other European countries backed Denmark and Greenland and, together with NATO, proposed increasing troop numbers on the island, holding the “Arctic Endurance” exercises, and reaffirmed their readiness for negotiations.
In response, Trump imposed tariff duties—effectively sanctions—of 10% on January 17 against imports from countries that sent troops to the island. This included the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. If no deal were reached by June 1, the tariffs were set to rise to 25%.
European countries, in turn, were prepared to introduce tariffs on US goods, and the European Parliament froze the ratification of a trade agreement with the United States.
However, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the US president softened his rhetoric, saying he was asking for nothing more than a “piece of ice” and would not use military force. Despite the dismissive tone, he ended the tariff escalation on January 21 without following through on threats against Europe. A “conceptual understanding” on Greenland’s future was reportedly reached between US authorities and NATO.
What Does Russia Say?
Back in 2025, Vladimir Putin commented on the situation at the International Arctic Forum in Murmansk, stating that US claims to the island had a fairly long history and that Trump’s position was therefore understandable. Putin assessed the new round of the Greenland crisis in a similar vein: though the issue does not concern Russia directly, he recalled the 19th-century sale of Alaska to the United States and Denmark’s “harsh treatment” of Greenland’s Indigenous population.
In the Russian leadership’s view, such historical references seemingly justify the rhetoric and threats directed at Greenland, though they overlook the fact that for the Arctic this would be yet another shock following the collapse of Arctic cooperation in 2022.
Civil Society’s Response
On January 17, protests took place in Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s administrative capital. Participants opposed US demands and reiterated that Greenland is not for sale. More than 15,000 people took part in the demonstrations in Denmark’s capital alone.
Public opinion clearly does not support the initiatives of the US leadership. According to a YouGov poll conducted among US citizens on January 7–10, 2026, fewer than one-third of respondents are willing to support Trump’s initiative to incorporate Greenland into the United States, and only 13% are ardent supporters of the idea. Surveys also show that an overwhelming majority—73%—oppose a “force-based scenario.” Ipsos reports similar figures.
Thirty-three percent of respondents categorically reject the US president’s rhetoric. Most Americans surveyed support Greenland’s independence: 55% in favor, 9% against.
Among respondents, the vast majority of opponents hold Democratic views, while supporters tend to be Republicans. Even so, 12% of Republican-leaning respondents are staunch opponents of the idea.
Greenlanders themselves spoke out decisively in 2025 against joining the United States: 85% were opposed.
Consequences for the Arctic
The debate over Greenland is now unfolding largely within a geopolitical framework. This moves us ever further away from the vision of a stable Arctic that prevailed after the end of the Cold War.
Without a substantive response from US authorities, calls to listen to Greenlanders themselves go unanswered. They seem not to exist in this latest round of the “great Arctic game.”
Russian authorities indirectly acknowledge the possibility of a change in the island’s metropole, pointing to Denmark’s “historical cruelty.” Manipulating facts and appealing to historical justice are typical features of public justifications for geopolitical deals. It is clear that if the United States were to take control of the island, Greenland’s path toward independence—toward which its autonomy has been gradually moving—would be halted. What future the United States offers Greenlanders beyond a “Golden Dome” and mineral extraction remains an open question.
The volatility of public rhetoric by major powers has become characteristic of international politics in recent years. In the case of Greenland, this stands in stark contrast to the unresolved problem of climate change and the urgent need to address the Arctic climate crisis. Unlike politicians, the climate recognizes no borders and knows no history.
Research shows that the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet already accounts for one-fifth of the current rise in global sea levels. Within Greenland itself, this will paradoxically lead to an expansion of the coastline, creating additional challenges for residents. According to satellite data, annual losses average 264 gigatons of ice, raising global sea levels by 0.8 millimeters—this trend has remained unchanged for the past 29 years. The militarization of the region and the intensification of economic development are direct consequences of climate change, which geopolitics largely ignores and is unlikely to be able to counter in any meaningful way.
Cover photo: Sean Gallup / Getty Images
