NATO has reportedly discussed blocking non‑member states from obtaining mining rights on the island
According to US media reports, Western officials are discussing ways to restrict Russian and Chinese access to Greenland’s mineral resources as part of broader Arctic security talks. This week, The New York Times and Politico, citing unnamed officials, reported that the discussions involved restricting non‑NATO states from acquiring mining rights in Greenland and strengthening oversight of mineral exploration licenses.
© Getty Images / habib billah
Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is abundant in natural resources, including zinc, lead, gold, iron ore, copper, and hydrocarbons. The island also harbors some of the world’s largest deposits of rare-earth minerals used in high-tech industries. Control over Greenland’s natural resources was transferred to local authorities under the 2009 Self-Government Act. These resources have attracted considerable interest from foreign entities, including the United States.
Who really needs Greenland?
The Arctic is the planet’s northernmost region, covering areas around the North Pole. Several countries, namely Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States, have territory in this region.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly shown interest in acquiring Greenland, citing its strategic location, military importance in the Arctic, and access to natural resources. He has also positioned this issue as a response to what he characterizes as threats from Russia and China.
His remarks have escalated tensions between Washington and European allies, including threats of new tariffs and even talk of seizing Greenland by military force. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that the situation around Greenland “definitely doesn’t concern us,” while Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has indicated that Washington is “well aware” that neither Russia nor China has intentions to seize the island. Beijing has criticized references to Russia and China as a “pretext” for what it terms Washington’s expansion of its Arctic presence.
US eyes resources in exchange for ‘protection’
Trump has contended that only US control can safeguard Greenland from Russia and China, asserting that otherwise both would seek to exert influence over the island. Denmark has rejected this narrative, maintaining that there is no external military threat to Greenland.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump stated that a “framework” for a Greenland deal was now under consideration. He mentioned that the proposal, negotiated with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, would grant the United States extensive military access to the island. Washington already operates military facilities in Greenland under long-standing bilateral defense agreements with Denmark.
US Vice President J.D. Vance later stated that Washington anticipates access to a portion of Greenland’s natural resources in return for providing the island with military “protection.” Greenland’s Mineral Resources Minister Naaja Nathanielsen has rejected US attempts to influence the island’s resource policy, telling Politico that Greenland “will not accept the future development of our mineral sector to be determined outside Greenland.”
Does Russia need Greenland?
Moscow has repeatedly and publicly dismissed claims of any interest in Greenland. While Chinese companies previously explored potential investments in Greenland’s mining sector, several projects were blocked or scaled back by Danish authorities.
In contrast, Russia’s interest has been limited even at the commercial level. According to Russia’s ambassador to Denmark, Vladimir Barbin, developing Greenland’s resources would not be economically viable.
Russia already controls vast natural resources within its own Arctic territory, including major oil and gas fields, large deposits of nickel, copper, and palladium, as well as coal, diamonds, and rare-earth elements. Against this backdrop, there is little incentive to invest in Greenland, where infrastructure is minimal and operating costs are exorbitant.
In an interview with RTVI, Barbin stated that Greenland would require “enormous investments” before large-scale extraction could commence. He noted that although dozens of exploration licenses have been issued, “99% of them remain on paper with no practical activity occurring.”
From Moscow’s perspective, the logic is straightforward: when comparable or larger reserves are already available at home, in regions with existing infrastructure and clearer economic returns, venturing into Greenland’s harsh and capital-intensive environment is not practical.