Why Greenland matters: NATO’s high north strategy explained

The Bulwark’s recent article on Greenland and NATO reads like a masterclass in separating political theatre from strategic reality. While President Donald Trump’s fixation on acquiring Greenland grabbed headlines, the piece reminds readers that the Arctic island has been a central concern for NATO and U.S. security planners for decades—long before it became fodder for social media jokes or political memes. By dissecting the geography, threat environment, and climate factors that make Greenland pivotal, the article shifts the conversation from presidential whim to enduring strategy.

The core argument is simple yet often overlooked: Greenland’s significance stems from its location, not politics. Situated at the gateway between North America and Europe, Greenland is integral to controlling the Atlantic’s sea lanes, undersea infrastructure, and reinforcement routes. The article emphasises the Greenland–Iceland–UK (GIUK) gap, a maritime chokepoint that has historically allowed Russian nuclear submarines to reach the broader Atlantic. Today, Russia’s Northern Fleet and aggressive posture make this geography a live security concern, while climate change is transforming the Arctic into both an opportunity and a battleground.

The Bulwark also highlights the U.S. and NATO’s long-term engagement with Arctic security. Contrary to media portrayals of Trump “discovering” the Arctic, the article documents two decades of alliance planning. From multinational satellite communications initiatives like NORTHLINK to ministerial meetings in 2023–2025, NATO has steadily prioritised the High North. Greenland, in this framework, is not a prize to be claimed but a strategic responsibility that requires coordinated defence, surveillance, and logistics across multiple allied nations. The article repeatedly underscores that Greenland’s defence is inherently multinational: no single country—U.S. included—can manage Arctic security alone.

Another strength of the analysis is its discussion of climate change as a military factor. The article explains “Arctic amplification,” showing how warming temperatures accelerate ice melt, create navigable waters, expose more shorelines, and intensify competition over sea routes and seabed resources. These shifts do more than disrupt ecosystems; they directly affect operational planning, infrastructure durability, and deterrence postures. By framing climate as a security variable, the piece highlights the foresight of NATO allies, especially the Nordic-Baltic Eight, who have long integrated environmental realities into their defence strategies.

Perhaps most importantly, the article reframes the Greenland debate as one of collective responsibility rather than unilateral ambition. It critiques Trump’s acquisitionist rhetoric without reducing the discussion to partisan bickering. Instead, it elevates the conversation to alliance strategy: Greenland matters because geography, threat, and climate converge to make it a linchpin of NATO’s Atlantic defence. U.S. involvement, including the Space Force’s Pituffik Space Base, is just one component of a much broader, interdependent security architecture.

By Vugar Khalilov