Why the United States of Greenland?

Protection of transatlantic lines

– Greenland is suitable for the location of radio-location stations and naval and aviation bases allowing reflection of the situation in the Arctic – says Dr. Michał Piekarski from the Polish National safety Society. “There are no another possible military benefits,” the interviewer emphasizes. And he immediately adds that these installations are already there. Americans have been utilizing Greenlandic infrastructure for decades, and the symbol of this presence is the air-space base in Pitufik (formerly Thule), playing an crucial function in the early rocket attack informing system.

Dr. Piekarski explains that the trajectory of intercontinental ballistic missiles fired from Asia toward the United States leads the shortest way through the North Pole. This makes Greenland the perfect place to deploy radar and sensors. Equally crucial is the maritime aspect – as the climate is warmed, it is possible to operate more and more water forces in the Arctic Ocean.

In this context appears GIUK Gap (from Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom), i.e. the water belt between Greenland, Iceland and large Britain. It is simply a natural ‘gate’ through which Russian ships—especially submarines—must pass to exit the Arctic into the Atlantic. Control of this area means the anticipation of early detection and tracking of Russian maritime activity and, consequently, the protection of transatlantic communication lines linking America to Europe.

Greenland is an utmost northwest component of this barrier. And again, it's not new. reflection systems, air and sea bases were already in operation there during the Cold War, and after 1991 they were reduced, not liquidated. “The importance of Greenland in the GIUK area is only applicable if we set up an active US military policy in Europe,” notes Dr. Piekarski. "So it is not logical to start a conflict with an ally about Greenland unless the only thing that matters to Trump's crew is the image effect," he states.

In allied territory

Or did it decide something else – specified as natural materials? Greenland, contrary to popular opinion, does not deserve the designation of an arctic Eldorado, easy to operate and warrant a fast profit. Oil and gas production in its area faces immense barriers: technological, environmental and economic.

– Greenland is not peculiarly rich in minerals – reserves Dr. Kathryn Goodenough, head geologist of British Geological Survey, in a conversation with the “Financial Times”. “None of its deposits are unique,” he adds. At the same time, however, it confirms the presence of crucial concentrations of uncommon earth metals, essential for modern technologies: from electronics, renewable energy, to defence industry.

The researcher's words confirm the results of investigation conducted in 2023. It follows that there are 25 out of 34 natural materials in Greenland considered critical by the European Commission. Apart from uncommon earth metals, these include graphite, copper, nickel or titanium. The problem is that there is virtually no infrastructure on the island to extract these resources. So immense investments are needed, and the usage of the deposit itself will be expensive.

Trump, however, argues that the United States is reasoning long-term. And in a planet where uncommon earth metallic supply chains are mostly controlled by China, all alternate origin has a strategical importance. But does it should be occupied erstwhile the deposits are located in allied territory?

At this point, we return to the fundamental question: is Greenland’s loud declarations and demonstrational interest truly due to a cool strategical calculation, or alternatively to the request for political effect? Many analysts are inclined towards this second interpretation. Militaryly, the US already have everything they request in Greenland today. natural – they can. So there is simply a symbolism: showing voters that America "thinks large categories", even if it means tensions with European allies.