This episode of the Inside Policy Talks looks at the main Arctic issue so far in 2025: Greenland’s role in North American security.
Moderated by MLI senior fellow Alex Dalziel, panelists from each of the four regional players gathered to discuss the dynamics, interests and recommendations at play: Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, Head of Research at the Center for Arctic Security Studies, Royal Danish Defence College, in Denmark; Christian Keldsen, Director, Greenland Business Association, in Greenland; Marisol Maddox, Senior Arctic Analyst at the Polar Institute, Wilson Center, in the US; and Dr. Jessica Shadian, President of Arctic 360 in Canada.
The views expressed in the discussion are solely those of the participants, and not those of the organizations with which they are affiliated.
Rahbek-Clemmensen explains the constitutional arrangements in the Kingdom of Denmark that sees Greenland handle most internal affairs and Denmark its defence, security and foreign policy. Despite this division, Denmark involves Greenlandic authorities in decision-making in these areas. He describes Greenland as a low-tension area, and that further work is needed to address aerial domain awareness and hybrid threats. Denmark has committed billions of dollars in new defense investments, including patrol vessels, drones, and satellite capabilities to Greenland, and is developing an additional Arctic defense package, expected later this year. One idea is establishing a Greenlandic Rangers service, modeled on Canada’s Arctic Rangers. Strengthening cooperation with NORAD and NATO, clarifying Greenland’s role in North American defense planning, and looking at the long-term implications of potential renewed Chinese interest in Greenland were all areas Rahbek-Clemmensen advised for future cooperation.
Keldsen notes that the arc of Greenlandic politics has been increasing autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark, with independence a recognized future goal. From an economic perspective, Keldsen emphasizes that Greenland’s economy is highly dependent on fishing, which accounts for almost all of its exports, with China its single largest foreign market. While there is political interest in strengthening trade ties with North America, shifting away from established European supply chains is challenging. Uncertainty in Greenland’s foreign relationships could discourage long-term business development, particularly in mining and infrastructure: “A prolonged uncertainty . . . does nothing good for the investment environment… we need that security, that reliability, that we belong to . . . these alliances.” He recommends that Greenland focus on turning existing MOUs with Canada, the U.S., and other partners into concrete agreements and work to establish more direct supply routes with North America.
From the U.S. perspective, Marisol Maddox notes that Greenland is strategically vital for national security and strategic competition with China. However, US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about Greenland becoming independent or joining the US has created unnecessary tensions in an otherwise strong U.S.-Greenland/Denmark relations. The U.S. already benefits from its existing agreements with Greenland and Denmark, who have been reliable security partners, and increasingly important economic partners. She cautions that adopting a transactional, sphere-of-influence approach to Greenland could set a dangerous precedent, undermining U.S. credibility and emboldening authoritarian over-reach around the globe: “If you go back to this old-school idea about spheres of influence and validate that way of thinking, I find the argument that this then actually encourages China to take Taiwan to be pretty compelling.” Among her recommendations are that the U.S. engage with Greenland and Denmark through established diplomatic mechanisms and ensure that policy decisions in the White House be guided by advisors with Arctic expertise.
Finally, Dr. Shadian highlights Canada’s growing engagement with Greenland, but pointed out that its slow pace of Arctic investment puts Canada at risk of being sidelined in regional decision-making. Opening a consulate in Nuuk and expanding direct trade and infrastructure investments would help solidify Canada’s role. Additionally, Canada should play a more active role in shaping North American Arctic defense discussions, potentially including Greenland/Denmark in NORAD cooperation. She states: “Inaction is not an option… we need to strengthen our presence, or we’re just going to be on the receiving end of what’s to come.”
