Maksim Dankin: The Future of the Arctic is Being Decided in Greenland

January 22, 2026

The Greenland case transcends a local storyline and becomes a focal point where key questions about the Arctic’s future converge.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly and in various contexts stated his intention to establish control over Greenland. Why the US wants to take the island, and how this situation could benefit Russia, was explained in a column for Komsomolskaya Pravda by Maksim Dankin, General Director of the Project Office for Arctic Development. With the editor’s permission, we republish this material for our readers.

The American administration has again turned to the Greenland agenda. A bill on the annexation of the island has been introduced in Congress, belligerent statements are being made at the highest level, and plans for a military seizure of Greenland are «leaking» to the press.

Historically, the topic of Washington annexing the island is not new. This issue was considered in 1867, 1910, 1946, and 1955. But only now has it gone this far (even the estimated cost of annexation – 700 billion US dollars – has been calculated). Everything indicates that we are dealing with a decision that has already been made, which the US authorities (at least under Donald Trump) will try to see through to the end.

The importance of this storyline for world politics can hardly be overstated. Firstly, the Greenland case transcends a local storyline and becomes a focal point where key questions about the future of the Arctic converge. The architecture of international relations in the region depends on how this situation develops. Currently, the circle of states that truly influence processes in the high latitudes is being determined, and a new balance of power in the Arctic is being established.

Secondly, Washington’s actions signify a tectonic shift in international law: your flag alone does not protect your territory; it is protected by your real political, economic, and, most importantly, military potential.

Why Does the United States Want Greenland?
Washington’s official position is known – it is needed for the strategic defense of the US against various threats. And primarily against threats allegedly emanating from Russia and China. Trump claimed that Russian and Chinese destroyers and submarines are «constantly circling» the island, and that «Russia or China could capture Greenland.»

The contrived nature of this argument is obvious. Not only because the occupation of the island is not in the plans of Russia or China, given its complete military-political senselessness, but also because the occupant of the Oval Office is not telling the whole truth: the US has maintained a military presence in Greenland since World War II. According to the Danish-American agreement on the defense of this territory, signed in 1951, Washington can send an unlimited number of its military personnel to Greenland. The Pituffik Space Base, belonging to the US Space Force, is already there, controlling the maritime and air sectors of the Arctic Ocean at its junction with the Atlantic Ocean. If the Americans want to expand their presence in Greenland so badly, they can do so without violating Danish sovereignty.

So what is the true motive of the US? The answer to this question is not clear-cut. The tasks being pursued on the «Greenland front» serve several strategic goals simultaneously.

First Goal: A New Redivision of the World
Goal number one is to launch a new phase in the redivision of the world, setting the tone for this process and maximizing gains from it. After the collapse of the USSR, the United States sought to establish itself as the sole superpower, imposing a «new world order» on others built on the idea of American leadership. They carried out economic and military expansion, destroying «regimes» they disliked across the planet. As long as it was beneficial to Washington, state borders were considered an inviolable value. However, the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, contrary to international law and carried out at the behest of the US, marked the collapse of this principle.

But if Kosovo became an American puppet state possessing at least the external attributes of independence, we are now witnessing a new milestone: relying on the «right of the strong,» Washington is moving towards the outright seizure of territories. It is obvious that this trend will not be limited to Greenland alone.

Second Goal: Push External Players Out of the Western Hemisphere
Another goal is the establishment of a new «Monroe Doctrine.» This doctrine, adopted by the Americans in the 19th century, is based on the principle of the unacceptability of interference by European powers in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. Now the Trump administration intends to demonstratively push all «external» players (including not only Europeans but also China) out of «its» half of the globe, or at least significantly limit their freedom of action in the region. Greenland, being under the control of small Denmark, seems like a good option for the first step towards realizing these aspirations: Europe is weak, deeply dependent on the US, and effectively lacks the means to neutralize American plans.

Third Goal: Access to the Russian Arctic
Another important strategic goal is direct US access to the «high Arctic.» Greenland is a «springboard» on the way to the North Pole and the Russian Arctic. Control over the island would simplify US military logistics, reducing the distances for deploying forces and assets, thereby inevitably affecting the balance of power in the Arctic. This would open up the possibility of advancing elements of sovereign military infrastructure deep into the Arctic region and creating an instrument for directly influencing maritime communications and transport routes in the high latitudes. Furthermore, incorporating Greenland into the US military framework would give the US the ability to reduce the delivery time of weapons of mass destruction to targets located in Russia.

Fourth Goal: Seizure of Natural Resources
An equally significant goal is the seizure of resources located on the Arctic shelf. Huge oil and gas reserves (more than 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of natural gas), deposits of rare earth metals, and vast amounts of marine biomass are concentrated there.

The latter circumstance is particularly alarming. Since 2014, the Danish-Greenlandic submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf provides for the transfer of 895 thousand square kilometers of the Arctic Ocean seabed to the control of Greenland and Denmark. Since 2015, Russia has also been seeking to stake a claim to a significant part of the Arctic shelf through this Commission, and the Russian and Danish submissions partially conflict with each other.

If Greenland changes its flag, the US will make every effort to consolidate its «rights» to this area. And this poses a real threat to us. If both we and the Greenlanders intend to formalize ownership of the shelf through UN institutions, the Americans act by brute force, with no regard for the «world community.» That’s exactly what happened in 2023 when the US announced the expansion of its continental shelf in the Arctic and the Bering Sea. With the annexation of Greenland by Washington, we will automatically face a major international problem.

How Will Events Develop Further?
First of all, several circumstances are obvious. Through blackmail and pressure, the US could realistically «push» Denmark out of the Western Hemisphere. The European Union, of which Denmark is a member, has nothing to counter the Americans (except appeals to international law). The Europeans have no military power – NATO is under the control of the same Washington – and they lack even the slightest resolve to act against their overseas «big brother.»

There are precedents for Americans purchasing territories from Denmark: in 1917, the US bought the Virgin Islands from the kingdom. Faced with Trump’s determination, the Danes might still leave Greenland while saving face, receiving some compensation, which could represent not only monetary sums but also the right to participate in future projects on the Greenland shelf. In extreme cases, the US is ready to launch a «color revolution» on the island, as a result of which Greenland would gain fictitious independence, effectively coming under American control.

The annexation of the island, if it proceeds even relatively painlessly, would create a favorable precedent for the US. From their point of view, they would confirm their moral right to «expel» all non-American jurisdictions from the Western Hemisphere. If theses like «the United States needs this territory for national security reasons» work for Greenland, and the rest of the West accepts it, then they will also work for other European possessions. Next in line would be, for example, Canada, about whose inexpediency of independent existence Trump has repeatedly stated. And this already threatens to turn the US into an Arctic superpower. In this respect, the States would approach in status Russia, which has the longest Arctic coastline in the world. The Arctic would end up divided into two geopolitical «poles» represented by Russia and the US, with the remaining Arctic states «squeezed» between them.

Why is this Scenario Potentially Dangerous for Russia?
In this new reality, we would all have to learn to live «from scratch,» creating rules on a clean slate. But the big question is whether the Americans, riding a geopolitical upswing, would listen to our wishes and concerns. It can be assumed that the US would begin to demand that Russia give up part of the shelf that might come under our control through UN procedures.

Inflating the «Chinese threat,» the US would insist on pushing Chinese investors and projects out of our Arctic zone. They would also question Russia’s rights to the Northern Sea Route. This, in turn, could call our Arctic sovereignty into question. It seems this is not at all what we need.

What Can Europe Do?
There is a feeling that the Europeans will not give up their positions so easily. If brute force is on Washington’s side, then Europe has centuries of diplomatic experience, complex inter-elite connections, and some economic arguments.

The main thesis actively promoted by Europeans is «pressure on Denmark could trigger a NATO crisis.» Through all channels, they are «leaking» alarming calls: in the event of Greenland’s secession, the trust of European partners in the US would be undermined. Since NATO remains a significant asset for the States, this argument could work.

Domestic political dynamics in the US could also help the Europeans. Republican power is not absolute: Trump is approaching the «equator» of his last presidential term. Congressional elections will be held this year, which could result in him facing a hostile «Democratic» majority that would torpedo his ambitious plans. It is also possible that the next administration will be «Democratic,» which would mean a rollback of US annexationist aspirations and a return to globalism. Moreover, even within the Republican Party, there are many who would not want the absorption of Greenland: for example, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska co-sponsored a bill prohibiting the seizure of territories belonging to NATO countries.

What Should Russia Do in This Situation?
Overall, the heightened contradictions between the Americans and the EU play into our hands. On the one hand, they add bitterness to the relations of NATO partners, creating new lines of tension. And since NATO is Russia’s key adversary, also aimed at countering the goals of the Special Military Operation, any crack in the foundation of this bloc is beneficial to us. If we have any tools in our arsenal (diplomatic, informational-psychological, etc.) capable of deepening the conflict around Greenland, we should use them. And in parallel – more actively address our own issues in the Arctic and beyond.

On the other hand, in the event of a successful annexation, we need to adopt both precedents: the case of one country’s territory being absorbed by another and the use of national security rhetoric to protect our interests abroad. Further, we should make recognition of the annexation a bargaining chip in relations with the US. The significance of this negotiating position should not be overestimated, but certain concessions from the States could be «squeezed out.»

The conflict over Greenland itself is beneficial to Russia. But specifically a conflict – that is, a possibly prolonged process of dispute between the US, Denmark, and the European Union. Preferably accompanied by «heated arguments.» However, a US victory in this confrontation is not in Russia’s interests. It does not serve our national security. Nevertheless, if it does happen, we must do everything to use it for our own purposes.