43 of the 50 raw materials Washington deems critical lie under Greenland's ice. In January 2026, Donald Trump reaffirmed his wish to "acquire" the Danish island. Behind the provocation, a real strategic equation: minerals, the Arctic route and a unique space base. Analysis of a standoff between a NATO ally and a territory that dreams of independence.
Introduction
Greenland is the largest non-sovereign territory in the world: 2.2 million km2, 80% covered by ice, 57,000 inhabitants. An autonomous territory of Denmark since 2009, it exercises its internal powers but leaves diplomacy and defence to Copenhagen. It is also, since January 2025 and again in January 2026, the object of an openly asserted American claim by Donald Trump.
To reduce this story to a presidential whim would be an analytical error. Greenland combines three assets that make it a strategic tipping point: a subsoil among the richest on the planet in critical minerals, a position on the Arctic sea routes that the melting ice is opening, and a key location for space surveillance and missile detection over the pole.
The Numbers of the Coveted
| Indicator | Figure |
|---|---|
| Area | 2.16 million km2 |
| Population | About 57,000 inhabitants |
| Share covered by ice | About 80% |
| Critical materials present (of 50 listed by the US) | 43 |
| Estimated world rank of rare-earth reserves | 8th |
| Status | Autonomous territory of Denmark (2009 law) |
| American military base | Pituffik (space, missile detection) |
| GDP dependent on Danish transfers | About half the public budget |
Why Greenland Really Matters
The Mineral Treasure
According to a 2023 report by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Greenland's subsoil is thought to hold 43 of the 50 raw materials deemed critical by Washington: rare earths, uranium, copper, graphite, zinc, but also metals indispensable to batteries and permanent magnets. In a context of rivalry with China, which dominates the world's refining of these materials, access to a massive Western deposit has an obvious strategic value.
The crucial nuance is that these resources are coveted but not necessarily exploitable in the short term. The climate, the absence of roads, deep-water ports and labour, as well as the costs of extraction in a polar environment, make most projects unprofitable at current prices. The Kvanefjeld rare-earth deposit, one of the most promising, has been blocked for years by the question of the associated uranium and local opposition.
The Arctic Route
The accelerated melting of the sea ice is gradually opening sea routes that shorten the links between Asia and the North Atlantic. Greenland borders these emerging routes. Control, or at least influence, over this territory becomes a question of power projection in an Arctic where Russia has massively reinvested and where China presents itself as a "near-Arctic state".
The Space Sentinel
The Pituffik base, formerly Thule, houses an early-warning radar and space-surveillance capabilities. Located on the shortest trajectory between North America and Russia over the pole, it is a link in the ballistic-missile detection system. It is the defence asset that, by itself, justifies the constant American attention on the island since the Cold War.
The Three-Actor Equation
The United States
The objective declared by Donald Trump is acquisition. The real, more attainable objective is to secure access to the resources and to lock in the military presence against Russia and China. The method, brutal and public, paradoxically weakens this objective by antagonising both Copenhagen and Nuuk.
Denmark
Copenhagen finds itself in an uncomfortable position: an ally of the United States within NATO, but sovereign over a territory its ally covets. The Danish response has been to reinforce its Arctic military presence and to tighten ties with the European Union, while avoiding verbal escalation.
Greenland
Nuuk plays its own score. Independence from Denmark is a horizon widely shared across the Greenlandic political class, fed by the memory of colonial violence. But independence presupposes a financial autonomy that only the exploitation of resources could provide, and that exploitation presupposes foreign capital and infrastructure. Greenland wants to choose its partners, not be sold.
DEBATE: Can Trump Really Get Greenland?
No, acquisition is legally and politically impossible Greenland is not for sale because it does not belong to Denmark in a proprietary sense: it is an autonomous territory whose population has the right to self-determination. Neither Copenhagen nor Nuuk will consent to it. A forced annexation against a NATO ally would destroy the Alliance itself. The claim is a negotiating lever, not a realisable project.
The real objective is not purchase but de facto control Trump does not need a deed of ownership. It is enough for him to obtain privileged mining access, an extension of the military presence and a strategic alignment of Greenland with Washington rather than Brussels. Pressure, even provocative, can extract substantial concessions from a territory of 57,000 inhabitants that is economically dependent.
Annexation is a mirage, but the game is not symbolic. The real stake is who will finance and oversee the future exploitation of Greenlandic resources, and under whose strategic influence the island will tip if it emancipates from Denmark. The United States, the European Union and China are vying for this role. Greenland, long a forgotten periphery, has become a centre of gravity that its small population is no longer enough to shield from the covetousness of the great powers.
TIMELINE
2004: Igaliku agreement, framing the American military presence at Thule (Pituffik).
2009: Law on the reinforced autonomy of Greenland.
2019: Trump's first public proposal to buy Greenland, rejected by Copenhagen.
January 2025: Trump's return to power, the claim relaunched.
January 2026: New presidential assertion of the wish to "acquire" the island.
2026: Danish military reinforcement in the Arctic, displayed EU support, mining projects still at a standstill.
SCENARIOS 2026-2030
Scenario 1: Negotiated access agreement (probability: 45%) Greenland and Denmark grant the United States mining access and a reinforced military presence, in exchange for economic guarantees. Formal sovereignty stays unchanged.
Scenario 2: Tense status quo (probability: 35%) No progress. The American claim stays verbal, mining projects stay blocked, the island keeps depending on Copenhagen.
Scenario 3: March towards independence (probability: 20%) Greenland sets an emancipation process in motion, opening an open competition between Washington, Brussels and Beijing to become its reference economic partner.
ANALYTICAL CONCLUSION
Greenland illustrates a truth of resource geopolitics: the value of a territory no longer depends on its population but on its subsoil and its position. An island of 57,000 inhabitants finds itself at the centre of a standoff between powers because it concentrates critical minerals, Arctic routes and space surveillance. Trump's claim will probably not lead to an acquisition, but it has already produced a lasting effect: it has placed Greenland on the mental map of foreign ministries and accelerated the question of its future. The real subject is not whether the island will be American, but under whose influence it will emancipate, and at what cost to the unity of NATO.
▸ Sources