Greenland explained: Why an icy island is making world powers nervous

In early 2026, two seemingly distant events, the United States military operation in Venezuela and renewed talk of acquiring Greenland, came together to focus global attention on how powerful nations project influence and how smaller territories navigate that power.

In a controversial action on January 3, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces had captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and that the United States would “run” Venezuela until a transition could be arranged.

That extraordinary episode, seen by many as a bold assertion of U.S. military might and a dramatic shift in foreign policy, has added fresh fuel to another geopolitical debate: Trump’s suggestion that the United States should acquire Greenland, a massive Arctic island currently under Danish sovereignty.

Both stories have ignited discussions about sovereignty, international law, great‑power competition, and the rights of smaller communities to chart their own futures.

Greenland is the world’s largest island, covering over 2.16 million square kilometres, yet it has a population of just around 56,000 people, mostly of Inuit descent.

Its towns and settlements lie mostly along the ice‑free coastline, and communities are tightly knit culturally and socially. The capital, Nuuk, is home to roughly a third of the island’s residents.

Life in Greenland balances ancient traditions with modern challenges: hunting and fishing remain vital to culture and food security in many towns, while climate change rapidly alters the landscape.

Melting ice affects wildlife migrations, sea levels across the globe, and even local transportation patterns. Many Greenlanders speak Kalaallisut as well as Danish and are deeply proud of their heritage.

Greenland is not an independent country; it is a self‑governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.

Over decades, it has gained increasing autonomy, especially with the 2009 Self‑Government Act, which expanded Greenland’s control over local affairs and acknowledged its right to pursue full independence if economically viable.

Danish subsidies continue to play a central role in Greenland’s economy, amounting to roughly a third of its government budget, and that dependency shapes the practical timetable for independence.

While many Greenlanders support the idea, economic realities including the need to build industries beyond fishing, remain major hurdles.

For decades, the backbone of Greenland’s economy has been fishing and seafood exports, accounting for the vast majority of its revenue.  

The island’s cold waters are rich with shrimp, cod, and halibut, key products for both local sustenance and foreign markets.

More recently, tourism has grown as international travellers seek the island’s dramatic ice fjords, wildlife, and Northern Lights. Yet seasonal tourism can strain transport and infrastructure that are still being developed.

Greenland also holds vast natural resources, from rare earth elements to potential oil and gas deposits. These minerals are increasingly valuable in the global move toward clean technologies and electrification.

Extracting them, however, is costly and controversial: it involves balancing economic opportunity with environmental risk and the wishes of local communities.

Greenland’s real global significance goes beyond its raw size or small population. Its position in the Arctic makes it pivotal in a region undergoing rapid environmental change and growing geopolitical competition.

As sea ice recedes, new shipping routes and access points for natural resources are emerging.

The island is already home to important military infrastructure, most notably the U.S. Pituffik Space Base, crucial to North American early‑warning systems for missile launches.

Proximity to the North Pole means Greenland sits astride key strategic approaches between North America, Europe, and Asia.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s renewed public suggestion that the United States might seek to acquire Greenland, something Denmark and Greenland’s leaders firmly reject, struck a nerve around the world.

Critics argue such rhetoric undermines norms of sovereignty and alliance cooperation, especially within NATO, of which Denmark is a member.

The Venezuelan episode, where the U.S. military captured Maduro and Trump declared the U.S. would run Venezuela for now, illustrates how far the United States is willing to project power in the 2020s.

Critics called the action a violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty; supporters argued it was necessary to counter drug trafficking and authoritarian rule.

For many observers, the capture of Maduro and the talk about Greenland are not isolated incidents.

Together, they signal a more assertive posture by the U.S., one that mixes military action with economic and geopolitical objectives.

In Venezuela, the focus is on oil, drugs, and regime change; in Greenland, it is on Arctic strategy, minerals, and great‑power competition with Russia and China.