Greece (Brussels Morning Newspaper) At a moment when global attention is fixed on Ukraine and the Middle East, an unexpected twist has emerged from the Arctic. Denmark’s foreign minister summoned Washington’s top envoy in Copenhagen after intelligence reports surfaced alleging that American citizens were engaged in covert influence campaigns in Greenland, stirring resistance to Danish authority. The move underscores just how sensitive the island’s political future has become—and how outside powers are increasingly willing to test the limits of Copenhagen’s control in a region of growing strategic value.
As the Arctic melts and mineral prospects emerge, Greenland is increasingly drawing on new international partnerships to diversify dependencies. The narrative hinges on identity—both Danish and Greenlandic—and plays out through discourse, policy, and legal instruments, all aimed at redefining the “community of the realm.” Gad even suggests that Denmark’s best hope for preserving that community may lie in fully embracing Greenlandic independence as a shared future.
Most Greenlandic parties back independence, though timelines vary—and while citizens now have the right to call a referendum since 2009, polls show few would consider joining the United States. Greenland’s uneasy dance with Denmark is as much about history as it is about politics. Since 1979, the island has enjoyed broad self-government, but Copenhagen still calls the shots on foreign affairs and defense. Independence is the stated goal of most Greenlandic parties, yet divisions persist over how quickly to move, and polls show little appetite among Greenlanders for trading the Danish realm for a U.S. embrace. Recent scholarship suggests this slow-motion evolution isn’t accidental.
An unlikely geopolitical hotspot
The push for Home Rule in 1979 followed Greenland’s rejection of European Community membership, a decisive break that set it on a new institutional course. The 2009 Self-Government Act, however, looked less like a revolution than the logical extension of three decades of path-dependent reforms—incremental shifts in power and identity that built on what came before. What’s changing now is tone: Greenlandic political identity is growing louder, more assertive, and increasingly impatient with the quiet logic of gradualism.
Nationalism swept across Europe in the late 18th and 19th centuries, toppling empires, spawning new nations and carving fresh borders on the map. Greenland, by contrast, arrived late to that tide—nearly a century and a half later—but its nationalist stirrings have taken on a quieter, more deliberate form. No one expects barricades in Nuuk or a violent rupture with Denmark. The island’s drive for independence is less about revolution than about leverage: who controls economic lifelines, who shapes foreign policy, and how Greenland presents itself on the world stage.
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the sudden proliferation of new states across Eastern Europe offered a powerful precedent. If Czechs, Slovaks, and the Baltic nations could break free from larger unions, why not Greenland? By the 1990s, the idea of independence had moved from the margins of debate to the mainstream of politics, with most parties embracing it as an element of Greenlandic identity. Yet the path forward has been cautious, bound up in the arithmetic of dependency. Denmark still provides annual block grants that account for a large share of Greenland’s budget. Copenhagen retains control over defense and foreign affairs. And Greenland’s political leaders know that a hasty exit without a stable economy would risk trading one dependency for another.
That tension has turned Greenland into an unlikely geopolitical hotspot. Its mineral resources, rare earths, and fishing waters make it a prize for global powers, while its location in the Arctic places it squarely in the strategic calculations of the United States, Russia, and China. Washington’s interest was laid bare in 2019 when the Trump administration floated the idea of purchasing Greenland outright—a proposal dismissed in Copenhagen but quietly illustrative of America’s view of the island’s strategic importance. Beijing, meanwhile, has sought footholds in mining and infrastructure, raising alarms in both Denmark and Washington about Chinese influence in the Arctic.
A Nationalist Impulse?
For Greenland, these overtures complicate an already delicate debate. The nationalist impulse is real, but independence cannot be pursued in isolation. The island must weigh its desire for self-determination against the risks of becoming a pawn in a larger great-power rivalry. That is why the movement has advanced not with revolutionary zeal but with incremental, calculated steps: home rule in 1979, expanded self-government in 2009, and ongoing debates about the timing of an eventual referendum on independence. Each stage reflects a mix of identity, pragmatism, and geopolitics.
In the end, Greenland’s story is less about breaking free in a single dramatic moment and more about carefully renegotiating its place in a world where sovereignty comes with strings attached. The challenge will be ensuring that in seeking freedom from Copenhagen, Nuuk does not simply exchange Danish tutelage for American or Chinese influence. Independence in the Arctic, it turns out, may require more than flags and constitutions—it may demand a mastery of diplomacy equal to the icy strategic waters that surround it.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
