In recent years, Greenland—a massive, ice-covered island often considered remote and isolated—has moved from the fringes of international discourse to the forefront of global strategic planning. Once seen primarily as a geographical curiosity, Greenland is now a pivotal player in Arctic geopolitics, drawing the attention of superpowers like the United States, China, and Russia.
At the heart of the renewed interest in Greenland is a fundamental question: Should the United States pursue ownership of Greenland, or are existing diplomatic and military arrangements sufficient to ensure American interests are protected? For former NATO Ambassador Kurt Volker, the answer is unequivocal: ownership is unnecessary and counterproductive. Through a combination of NATO commitments, robust military cooperation with Denmark, and open economic channels, Volker argues the U.S. already possesses everything it needs to succeed in the region.
This article dives deeply into the many facets of this ongoing debate, exploring security dynamics, resource potential, historical context, and the geopolitical games being played in the Arctic. The goal is to understand why Greenland matters, what the U.S. stands to gain—or lose—in trying to change the current setup, and how cooperation may be the key to maintaining balance in this increasingly tense frontier.
No Need to Own the Ice: The Case Against U.S. Sovereignty Over Greenland
Kurt Volker’s central point is refreshingly pragmatic: there is no strategic or operational benefit for the United States in acquiring Greenland. Ownership, after all, implies sovereignty—along with the responsibilities, costs, and potential backlash associated with it. Greenland is already administered by Denmark, a close NATO ally, and the United States enjoys free and open access to the territory through long-standing defense agreements.
The U.S. has maintained a presence in Greenland since World War II. At one point, it operated up to 17 military bases across the island. Today, the Thule Air Base—now known as Pituffik Space Base—remains a critical asset in the U.S. defense architecture. This installation plays an integral role in missile detection, satellite tracking, and early warning systems. Notably, the drawdown from 17 bases to the current setup was a U.S. decision, not one forced by Danish resistance.
This detail underscores Volker’s argument: the current framework is flexible and advantageous. Denmark does not obstruct U.S. operations on Greenland, and the existing arrangement allows for adaptation and growth if circumstances demand it. Ownership, by contrast, could provoke political resistance from both Greenlanders and Danes, disrupt the harmony within NATO, and even offer a propaganda win to adversaries like Russia or China.
The Arctic Awakens: Strategic Significance in a Warming World
As global temperatures rise and ice continues to melt, the Arctic is undergoing a transformation that carries profound strategic implications. New shipping lanes are opening up, mineral-rich territories are becoming accessible, and untapped oil and gas reserves are emerging as viable targets. In short, the Arctic is no longer a frozen afterthought—it’s the next major theater of great power competition.
Russia, with its extensive Arctic coastline and military investments, is aggressively expanding its footprint. China, despite lacking direct access to the Arctic, is staking its claim through economic partnerships, research stations, and infrastructure projects. Against this backdrop, Volker acknowledges the validity of Senator JD Vance’s concerns: the Arctic cannot be ignored.
However, rather than resorting to territorial claims, Volker urges the U.S. to strengthen its existing relationships and frameworks. NATO provides a stable platform for cooperation in the region, and Denmark’s own strategic commitments make it a reliable partner. By focusing on alliance-building rather than acquisition, the U.S. can secure its interests while avoiding unnecessary friction.
This perspective aligns with broader Western strategies of multilateralism and rule-based order. It recognizes that Arctic competition doesn’t have to escalate into conflict. By investing in partnerships and upholding international law, the U.S. can serve as a stabilizing force in a region increasingly defined by uncertainty and ambition.
Greenland and NATO: Collective Security in the High North
One of the most compelling reasons not to pursue sovereignty over Greenland is that the island already enjoys the full protection of NATO’s collective defense principle. Article 5 of the NATO Charter states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland falls squarely within that umbrella.
Volker highlights how this arrangement not only enhances Greenland’s security but also reinforces its strategic value. Any threat to the island would trigger a coordinated NATO response, creating a powerful deterrent against aggression. Moreover, Denmark’s recent moves to boost Arctic security signal a growing awareness of the region’s importance among European allies.
In the past, the Arctic was seen as a low-tension zone—a sort of geopolitical backwater. But that perception is changing rapidly. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with China’s expanding global reach, has prompted NATO to reevaluate its northern flank. Greenland, in this context, is no longer a passive territory but an active front in the alliance’s strategic calculus.
This evolving mindset is reflected in Denmark’s defense spending. The country now commits 3.2% of its GDP to defense—well above the NATO minimum—and has earmarked billions in additional funding for Greenland’s development and security. These investments serve as a signal: Denmark takes its Arctic responsibilities seriously, and it is willing to work with allies to meet new challenges.
Sovereignty Isn’t Required for Reinforcement: Military Flexibility in Greenland
Critics of the status quo sometimes argue that without formal sovereignty, the U.S. lacks the freedom to scale its presence in Greenland. Volker dismisses this as a myth. The truth, he contends, is that the United States already has all the latitude it needs to expand operations on the island.
Agreements between the U.S. and Denmark allow for ongoing military cooperation, and there are no legal or political roadblocks preventing a deeper footprint—should circumstances warrant it. In fact, Denmark has shown itself to be not only cooperative but enthusiastic about joint ventures that enhance mutual security.
This flexibility is critical in an era of rapid change. Arctic ice is melting faster than anticipated, shifting the geopolitical landscape with each passing year. If the U.S. needs to respond quickly—by building new infrastructure, deploying additional assets, or conducting joint exercises—it can do so within the current framework.
Volker’s message is clear: agility matters more than ownership. By retaining the ability to scale operations without the burden of administration, the U.S. maximizes its strategic reach while minimizing its liabilities.
The Economic Goldmine Beneath the Ice
Beyond its military value, Greenland is also rich in natural resources—particularly rare earth minerals, which are essential for everything from smartphones to electric vehicles to missile systems. These minerals have become a key focus in the global tech race, and control over their supply chains is now a matter of national security.
Volker emphasizes that the U.S. has ample opportunity to invest in Greenland’s resource sector through partnerships and private enterprise. There is no requirement to own the territory in order to benefit from its economic potential. In fact, Greenland’s semi-autonomous government actively encourages foreign investment, provided it aligns with local priorities and environmental standards.
Already, American companies are exploring joint ventures in mining, logistics, and infrastructure. These endeavors not only create economic opportunities but also strengthen ties between the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland. By respecting Greenland’s autonomy and working through collaborative channels, the U.S. enhances its credibility and builds goodwill.
Ownership, by contrast, could derail this progress. Greenlanders have consistently rejected the idea of becoming part of the United States, and any attempt to force the issue could backfire politically and diplomatically. Volker’s view is pragmatic: if economic access is already available through peaceful means, why risk alienating partners by pursuing a more aggressive path?
Moscow’s Murmurs: Russian Posturing and the Arctic Theater
One of the key challenges in Arctic geopolitics is Russia’s assertiveness. President Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his ambitions in the High North, and recent rhetoric suggests a growing willingness to frame the Arctic as a zone of confrontation. Putin has warned that Western actions could turn the region into a “theater of war.”
Volker, however, sees this as classic saber-rattling. He notes that U.S. bases have existed in Greenland since the 1940s, and nothing about current operations represents a significant departure from historical norms. Russia’s complaints, in this light, are less about real provocations and more about narrative control.
This interpretation is important. It reminds policymakers that while Russia’s threats must be taken seriously, they should also be understood in context. The Kremlin has a long history of using aggressive language to mask domestic problems or distract from setbacks abroad. Responding with calm, calculated policy—rather than knee-jerk escalation—is the best way to maintain stability.
Greenland, by virtue of its location and legacy, is already integrated into Western defense strategies. Rather than overreact to Russian bluster, Volker advises focusing on alliance cohesion and regional resilience. That means bolstering infrastructure, increasing intelligence sharing, and enhancing interoperability—all of which can be done without territorial change.
Partnership Over Possession: A 21st-Century Strategy for the Arctic
In concluding his case, Kurt Volker returns to a central theme: ownership is not the answer. The United States does not need to annex Greenland or challenge Danish sovereignty in order to achieve its goals. Through diplomacy, defense cooperation, and economic engagement, it already holds a privileged position in the Arctic.
What’s more, this model of partnership aligns with broader trends in global governance. In an interconnected world, the most effective strategies are those that build coalitions rather than empires. NATO, with its emphasis on collective defense and shared values, offers a blueprint for Arctic stability.
Volker’s vision is forward-looking. It recognizes that the Arctic is changing—but insists that those changes should be met with cooperation, not confrontation. By working with allies like Denmark, respecting Greenland’s autonomy, and staying grounded in international law, the U.S. can secure its interests while promoting peace.
In an era where geopolitical tensions are rising and competition for resources is intensifying, that approach may be the surest path to long-term success.