US President Donald Trump's obsession with annexing Greenland is disorienting European public opinion. While at first it seemed like just another outburst from a capricious tyrant, once the threats escalated into action, there was widespread confusion. In reality, this obsession of the American autocrat is just one of the many manifestations we have been forced to witness in recent times, and which should be interpreted as urgent signs of the end of a historical cycle.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the genocide of the Palestinian people by Benjamin Netanyahu's Israeli government, and Trump's military aggression against Venezuela-culminating in the arrest of dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores-are the three major events that indicate that the thirty-year period of illusions, which began with the collapse of the Soviet regime and the end of bipolarism, has now dramatically come to an end.We are witnessing the twilight of a global order founded on the hegemony of the United States, the only power to survive the Cold War, and on the liberal-democratic rules of international law that for decades have governed relations between states, "promising" peace and prosperity.
In reality, with regard to international law, it is worth noting that it has not always been respected by the great powers (the United States, Russia, China, etc.). Conversely, when political or strategic interests prevail over shared rules, international law is systematically violated-as demonstrated by the cases of Panama and Iraq-without real consequences for the responsible states. Furthermore, the veto power exercised by some powers within the UN Security Council highlights how the application of international law is more the exception than the norm.
The players in this new historical cycle (China, India, and Russia, both individually and as BRICS) have already forcefully entered the scene, aiming to redefine the international balance of power. The planet is ablaze, with more than fifty active wars, and each player is playing its part to increase its sphere of influence in order to secure control of trade networks and the supply of raw materials.
Another element that distinguishes this new phase of inter-imperialist competition is its geographic dimension. Nation states no longer play a key role: the competition now takes place between countries of continental proportions, whose size renders smaller competitors structurally irrelevant.
Given the above, the Greenland dispute, like any other international event, must be seen within this new framework of developing hegemonic relations between imperialist powers.
Let's see what strategic role Greenland plays for the United States and beyond.
Strategic raw materials and trade routes
Greenland is a Danish island located between the North Atlantic and the Arctic Sea. With a population of 56,542, it is the least densely populated territory on Earth (0.03 inhabitants/km²). Despite being part of the Kingdom of Denmark, following the 2008 referendum, it gained extensive autonomy, which resulted in the transfer of legislative and judicial powers, as well as the management of natural resources, to the local government.
The island's economy is primarily based on tourism and fishing, although approximately 30% of GDP comes from subsidies from Denmark. At the same time, the territory is particularly rich in raw materials. The Arctic region, in fact, is home to significant natural resources: not only hydrocarbons such as natural gas and oil, but also rare earths and other strategic minerals, crucial to the global energy transition. According to a 2008 estimate by the US Geological Survey, approximately 30% of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 13% of its oil lie beneath the Arctic ice.
Global warming is making Greenland's natural resources more accessible, thanks to melting ice and longer shipping seasons. This facilitates the exploration and extraction of strategic minerals, although actual exploitation remains limited by high costs, environmental constraints, and political choices geared toward protecting a particularly fragile ecosystem.
But climate change is also profoundly transforming maritime trade routes. The Arctic, long impassable by ice, is emerging as a strategic alternative to the Suez Canal. The so-called Arctic route, or Northern Route, currently controlled and militarized by Russia, promises faster and more cost-effective connections between Asia and Europe.
Using this route, for example, would allow a container to cover the distance between Shenzhen and Hamburg in about 23 days, compared to 34 via Suez or 48 for circumnavigating Africa. For this reason, numerous shipping companies are evaluating alternative routes, including passages around the Cape of Good Hope, in light of instability in the Middle East and the threat posed by Houthi attacks on maritime traffic in the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb, off the coast of Yemen.
According to Article 234 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Arctic countries have the right to regulate maritime traffic along the Arctic route, including the right to impose tolls on foreign vessels. However, this option only applies if the route remains ice-free for most of the year, as has been the case so far. With the melting of the ice, if the Arctic route were to remain ice-free for more than six months of the year in the future, this rule would automatically lapse, depriving Arctic countries of the right to block passage or impose tolls under international law.
The year-round opening of the Arctic route could change the geopolitical balance of maritime trade. Russia, by controlling the route, would strengthen its strategic position, while its partner China could, together with Moscow, exploit the shipping lanes and the vast oil and gas deposits beneath the permafrost, as well as promote technological and digital collaboration.
In this scenario, Greenland emerges as a key target for the United States. Controlling the island would mean curbing Russian and Chinese ambitions, securing passage along the Western Arctic route, and accessing valuable resources. It is no coincidence that Washington, after historic attempts in the 19th and 20th centuries, recently reaffirmed its interest in purchasing the island, confirming the United States' strategic focus on the Arctic.
For the record, it should be noted that the United States has long had a military presence in Greenland. Several bases have been built over the years, including the Pituffik Space Base, also known as Thule Air Base, which is still operational. This installation houses the BMEWS radar system, crucial for the early detection and interception of potential missile attacks targeting US territory.
In this scenario, Europe risks being a passive spectator, unable to formulate its own strategic line. The Meloni government's "Italian Arctic Strategy" is yet another example of how each European country (Italy included) is moving forward on its own, systematically creating "short circuits" between different national interests.
Overcoming the Profit Logic
The competition over the Arctic and new trade routes is yet another manifestation of the crisis of global capitalism and its inherent predatory nature. Behind the declarations of Trump and US nationalists, as well as the strategies of Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels, lies the same logic: geopolitical control of strategic territories and the private appropriation of essential resources. Greenland, rare earths, oil, and gas thus become pawns in an economic war between powers, while social and environmental needs are systematically sacrificed to the interests of the ruling classes.
This race for the Arctic is not about collective security or the well-being of populations, but about defending profits and imperial hegemony in a world marked by growing inequality and the climate crisis. Only by questioning the primacy of the state as an instrument of power and the market as the sole criterion for resource management is it possible to imagine an alternative. An Arctic freed from the logic of competition and militarization could become a space of cooperation and collective use, where natural and technological resources are oriented toward social and environmental justice, rather than the strengthening of a few centers of power.
Notes
Sara Brugnoni (ed.), There's already a major US military base in Greenland: what is the Pituffik Space Base and where is it located, «Geopop», 09/01/2026 (https://www.geopop.it/in-groenlandia-ce-gia-unimportante-base-militare-usa-cose-la-pituffik-space-base-e-dove-si-trova).
Mario Platero, Trump is not the first US president to want Greenland: the island has been a Washington obsession for over 200 years, «Corriere della Sera», 19/01/2026 (https://www.corriere.it/esteri/26_gennaio_19/trump-groenlandia-presidenti-usa-faf61b41-16e8-4bc5-bb85-10e0e6113xlk.shtml).
Fabio Ricceri, "The Great Arctic Game: Trump, Greenland, and the Future of Global Trade Routes. The Role of Russia and China," Rivista.AI, January 12, 2025 (https://www.rivista.ai/2025/01/12/il-grande-gioco-dellartico-trump-la-groenlandia-e-il-futuro-delle-rotte-commerciali-globali-il-ruolo-di-russia-e-cina).
Greenland, Wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groenlandia).
Greenland and the Arctic, Italy prepares its strategy: from rare earths to oil, the opportunities, «Adnkronos», 17/01/2026 (https://www.adnkronos.com/economia/groenlandia-piano-italia-artico-cosa-prevede_?5rCdFNn6vfSRlvYmjH17T9).
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
_________________________________________
(en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #42 - Greenland: Curbing Chinese and Russian Ambitions - Lino Roveredo (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten