How to Talk About Greenland Like You Know What You’re Talking About

Greenland has become a recurring topic in global security discussions, often framed around ownership or control. In reality, the situation is governed by existing law, geography, and long-standing agreements.

Direct takeovers of countries have become exceedingly rare in the modern era, with most attempts since World War II either reversed, unrecognized, or met with sustained international opposition. However, most of these also were initiated by countries with bad reputations to begin with – such as Iran, Russia, China, etc.

It occurred to us that not many of us could hold any sort of knowledgeable conversation about Greenland, so we did some research:

How Denmark came to control Greenland

Greenland’s connection to Denmark dates back more than 300 years and began through colonization, not purchase.

Early history

Greenland was inhabited by Inuit peoples for thousands of years before any European control. Norse settlements existed briefly around the year 1000 but disappeared centuries before modern states emerged.

The Inuit are Arctic Indigenous peoples whose ancestors have lived across the polar regions of North America for thousands of years, long before European contact. (Today, Inuit communities live in Greenland, Northern Canada, and Alaska. The term “Eskimo” is outdated and considered inappropriate in many contexts.

In the early 1700s, Denmark–Norway asserted renewed interest in Greenland largely for religious, trade, and strategic reasons.

Danish colonization

In 1721, a Danish-Norwegian missionary, Hans Egede, established a permanent European settlement on Greenland’s southwest coast. This marked the beginning of formal Danish colonial rule. At the time, Denmark and Norway were united as one kingdom. Greenland was treated as a colonial possession and Denmark controlled trade, governance, and foreign relations.

Why Denmark

Denmark’s claim was reinforced because it already governed Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Other European powers showed limited sustained interest, and Denmark maintained continuous administrative control. When Denmark and Norway separated in 1814, Greenland remained under Danish control.

Norway reconsiders

Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland was later reinforced by international agreements and rulings, including a 1933 international court decision rejecting a competing claim by Norway. Post–World War II recognition of Danish sovereignty within the emerging international legal system took place, and Denmark ended Greenland’s formal colonial status and integrated it more directly into the Danish state.

Away from colonial rule

In 1953, Greenland ceased to be classified as a colony under Danish law. In 1979, Home Rule was granted. And, in 2009, the Self-Government Act recognized Greenlanders as a people with the right to independence by referendum. Today, Greenland governs its internal affairs, while Denmark retains responsibility for defense and foreign policy.

Greenland has its own elected parliament (Inatsisartut), prime minister and government, with authority over domestic affairs, including education, health care, policing, taxation, and natural resources.

Denmark retains responsibility for Defense, Foreign policy, Citizenship and currency.

Existing U.S.–Denmark agreements provide access

The United States operates in Greenland under established agreements. The foundation is the 1951 U.S.–Denmark Defense Agreement, which allows U.S. military installations for defensive purposes while preserving Danish sovereignty. This agreement governs Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), which supports – Missile early-warning systems – Space surveillance and – Arctic air and maritime monitoring. These arrangements give the U.S. permanent, legal access without any change in sovereignty.

Military presence around Greenland

The United States: Maintains a permanent military installation on Greenland at Pituffik Space Base under treaty.

Russia: maintains extensive Arctic military forces, including naval, air, missile, and ground units — all located on Russian territory east of Greenland. Russia has no bases, troops, or installations in Greenland. Russia’s interest in Greenland is strategic and geographic. Greenland lies along air and sea routes connecting North America and Europe, making it relevant to Arctic monitoring and early-warning systems. Russia’s Arctic military expansion increases the strategic importance of nearby NATO-controlled territory.

China: has no military forces in Greenland or the Arctic. Its involvement has been limited to scientific research, commercial shipping studies, and past investment proposals. China has described itself as a “near-Arctic state” and has pursued economic opportunities in Greenland, including rare-earth mining and infrastructure investment. Several Chinese-backed proposals were blocked or scaled back following decisions by Greenland’s government and Denmark. China holds no ownership stake or military footprint in Greenland.

Population: the size of East Providence, RI!

Greenland’s population is about 56,000–57,000 people, making it one of the least-populated territories in the world relative to its size. Roughly one-third of residents live in the capital, Nuuk, with the remainder spread across small coastal towns and settlements. To put that in local perspective, Greenland’s entire population is comparable to East Providence, spread across an island larger than Mexico, with no road system connecting towns.

The median age is in the mid-30s, younger than many Western countries – but gradually rising.

Economy: narrow and concentrated

Greenland’s economy is highly concentrated:

• Fishing and seafood exports — especially shrimp and halibut — dominate private-sector employment and exports

• Public services are supported in part by an annual financial grant from Denmark, which represents a significant share of the government budget

• Mining (rare-earth minerals) contributes smaller but growing shares

• Tourism is growing

Large-scale resource extraction remains limited by infrastructure costs, environmental concerns, and political decisions made by Greenland’s own government.

Education and workforce

Greenland has one university, Ilisimatusarfik, located in Nuuk. It focuses on teacher education, public administration, social sciences, law and cultural studies, and Arctic and environmental research. Programs common elsewhere — such as medicine, engineering, and advanced technical sciences — are not widely available.

As a result, many Greenlandic students leave the country for higher education, primarily to Denmark. Some return, particularly those entering public service, but many do not, contributing to workforce shortages in specialized fields – often referred in the country as “brain drain”.

Demographic trends

Greenland’s population has remained relatively stable in recent years, fluctuating slightly due to migration and birth rates. Long-term trends show the population will have a low population growth or mild decline, with ongoing out-migration of young adults for education and work

What a larger U.S. presence could provide

Beyond existing military operations, a larger U.S. presence could provide:

• Expanded search-and-rescue and emergency response capacity

• Infrastructure investment in ports, airports, communications, and energy

• Increased Arctic and climate research capability

• Technical support for mineral supply chains, subject to Greenlandic approval

• Education and workforce development partnerships

All such activity would remain subject to Greenland’s consent and Danish sovereignty.

Comparison with the Panama Canal

The strategic logic applied to Greenland is often compared to U.S. concerns about the Panama Canal, but the cases differ in structure and law. In both situations, the United States views critical global transit routes as national-security interests. The Panama Canal is a man-made chokepoint governed by treaty, while Greenland is a self-governing territory with a permanent population. After transferring control of the canal to Panama in 1999, the U.S. focused on countering China’s growing influence over port operations through diplomacy and security cooperation, not reacquisition. In Greenland, the U.S. already has treaty-based access and no comparable foreign operator to remove.

___

Value of Greenland to the world as a peaceful route

The United States and its allies increasingly view the need for alternative global shipping routes as a strategic priority because several Middle East waterways have become more vulnerable to disruption. Key chokepoints such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Bab el-Mandeb carry a large share of global trade and energy shipments, yet are exposed to regional conflict, state and non-state attacks, and political leverage.

Recent disruptions in the Red Sea have underscored how quickly shipping costs, insurance rates, and delivery times can rise when these routes are threatened. As a result, U.S. strategic planning increasingly emphasizes redundancy and resilience in global trade — including interest in emerging Arctic routes that could, over time, provide seasonal alternatives connecting North America, Europe, and Asia without passing through Middle East chokepoints.

US interest in a “peaceful purchase” – “free asssociation” – or…

The U.S. administration is publicly exploring a range of options for acquiring Greenland, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio telling lawmakers the focus is on negotiating a peaceful purchase, even as the White House says use of U.S. military force is “always an option.” Denmark, Greenland, and NATO allies have strongly rejected any forceful takeover.

The administration has reportedly discussed other frameworks such as a Compact of Free Association with Greenland, which would be an alternative to outright purchase. Congressional and allied pushback stresses that any acquisition attempt must respect sovereignty and international law.

A White House spokesperson stated that acquiring Greenland is considered a “national security priority” and that “utilizing the U.S. military is always an option” the commander-in-chief could consider.

Despite an emphasis on buying rather than invading, official statements from the White House publicly have said that military action is “always an option” among the various strategies being weighed, which has drawn international and domestic criticism.

___

What benefits for Greenlanders if a U.S. purchase occurred?

Large, immediate financial compensation with a  large lump-sum payment or long-term financial package,, potentially far exceeding Denmark’s annual subsidy to Greenland. This could fund infrastructure, housing, health care, and education, and reduce reliance on Danish block grants.

Expanded security and emergency response would provide larger search-and-rescue capacity, faster response to maritime and aviation emergencies, and expanded disaster and environmental response capabilities. The U.S. already provides some of this through treaty-based presence, but a larger role could increase capacity.

Infrastructure investment would more than likely includude airports and ports, communications and broadband, energy systems suited for Arctic conditions, and transportation within and between settlements.

Education and workforce opportunities for residents to gain access to U.S. universities at in-state or resident rates, and federal education and training programs, which would be expanded to professional pathways in: medicine, engineering and science and technology. This could reduce the need to leave Greenland permanently for education.

Health care access to U.S. federal health programs, and easier medical evacuation and specialist care, and potential investment in local health facilities. This is often cited given Greenland’s remote geography and limited specialist care.

Citizenship and mobility could gain Greenlanders U.S. citizenship or residency – as well as easier travel, work, and residence in the United States, and access to U.S. social programs. This is one of the most commonly cited individual-level benefits.

Key limits and uncertainties

• Greenland would lose the right to self-determination exercised through its current path toward independence

• U.S. territorial status (state, territory, or other) is uncertain

• Cultural, language, and Indigenous governance protections are not guaranteed

• No clear precedent exists for absorbing a self-governing Indigenous-majority territory of this size and culture

• Strong Greenlandic opposition suggests benefits might not be viewed as worth the trade-offs

While supporters cite economic opportunity, security, and access to U.S. systems, Greenland’s elected leaders and public statements consistently emphasize, regardless of any purchase or agreement their interests in

• Cultural autonomy

• Control over land and resources

• The right to decide their own future – self-governance

So – now you know – more!