CHACRDIGEST
JANUARY 31st, 2026
#52
AUTHOR: Professor Andrew Stewart, Head of Conflict Research A new year has brought with it an increase in uncertainty about global security in the face of further interventions by US President Donald Trump, but with an apparently ever more forceful and kinetic approach to safeguarding American security and economic interests. Having launched military action to capture the leader of Venezuela and despatched a carrier task force to the Arabian Gulf to challenge the Iranian leadership, it has been his interest in the strategically important island of Greenland which has been most closely followed. A number of NATO members expressed support for Denmark as part of a growing commitment to strengthening security in the Arctic region, leading to economic threats against them from the White House. This in turn has led to questions about the long-term credibility and stability of the Alliance. With the annual Doomsday Clock announcement, now closer to midnight than at any stage since its creation in 1947, there is little evidence to suggest that geopolitical tensions will ease in the months ahead. The views expressed in this Digest are not those of the British Army or UK Government. This document cannot be reproduced or used in part or whole without the permission of the CHACR. chacr.org.uk
EUROPE Bellicose comments made by President Trump and senior figures close to him about the future of Greenland, along with threats to impose tariffs on fellow NATO states who expressed support for Danish sovereignty, have dominated media and think-tank interest. Building on his 2019 statements expressing interest in buying the island, there has been growing pressure to take control throughout his second term of office, which began 12 months ago. This has now grown to the point where the possibility of military action to secure American control has raised doubts about Denmark’s future and even the future of NATO. It has been widely reported that this is not the first time the US has shown an interest in Greenland, an island which leaders in Washington DC have viewed as strategically essential for basing, early warning and controlling the northern approaches. Current treaty arrangements do not prevent the US from increasing its military presence in Greenland and the Pituffik Space Base already features in future US planning for security in the wider Arctic. Charlie Edwards, writing for IISS, notes that this all makes recent events “all the more confusing and counterproductive”. Vice President J.D. Vance’s visit to Pituffik last year “deepened suspicion in Greenland that Washington is treating the island as an object, not a partner” and American actions have likely shifted Greenland closer to Denmark in the near term and made the politics of Greenlandic independence more cautious. At the same time, the writer cautions, “Washington cannot override Greenlandic consent or Danish sovereignty without incurring lasting strategic costs”. Amongst discussion about possible reasons for recent American actions, the Atlantic Council has provided a detailed study of one possible driver, the autonomous Danish territory’s potential wealth of mineral resources. With known deposits of copper (essential for electrical infrastructure), graphite (key to battery production), gallium, tungsten, zinc, gold, silver and iron ore, it also holds various specialty metals with high-tech and defence applications, including platinum, molybdenum, tantalum and vanadium and one of the largest uranium deposits in the world. Of potentially still greater interest are an estimated 36 million tonnes of rare earth elements and, with further exploration and feasibility studies, this may be proven to contain the world’s second-largest reserves after China. But, as the report notes, “from a supply perspective, Greenland’s reserves are largely theoretical” and there are a number of notable challenges before any meaningful production could take place. Most obvious is the limited infrastructure and local social and political opposition (as evidenced with demonstrations in Greenland and Denmark), which has been heightened by the tone of recent American comments. Noting that it will take at least a decade before there is any noteworthy supply, the conclusion highlights the need for “patient, partnership-based engagement that respects Greenland’s autonomy and international law” but also acknowledges the wider geopolitical dangers of intensifying global competition over critical resources.
1 // WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND UKRAINE // CHACR DIGEST