Greenland’s Rare Earths Expose Europe’s Strategic Blind Spot

European states for many years maintained a largely passive stance toward the development of Greenland's strategically vital natural resources. Under current conditions, this approach is increasingly leading to lost opportunities and a weakening of Europe's influence in one of the most important arenas of global resource competition.

Photo: Designed by Freepik by ojosujono96, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

Лёд

Against the backdrop of sharply rising interest in Greenland from the United States and China, Europe's inaction now appears to be a serious miscalculation with not only economic, but also geopolitical consequences. This assessment was reported by Politico, citing comments by former Danish foreign minister Jeppe Kofod, who now serves as a strategic adviser to the Australian company Energy Transition Minerals.

Rare Earths and a Missed European Opportunity

Energy Transition Minerals, which actively cooperates with Chinese partners, is considering launching mining operations at the Kvanefjeld deposit in southern Greenland. The site is regarded as one of the largest rare earth element reserves in the world, containing materials that are critical for wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries, advanced weapons systems, and high-tech electronics.

As the global energy transition accelerates and military spending rises, rare earth metals are becoming a cornerstone of technological sovereignty. Control over their extraction is increasingly viewed as a matter of strategic importance.

Despite this, neither Copenhagen, nor Brussels, nor the Greenlandic authorities previously pursued comparable large-scale projects involving European institutions. In 2009, Denmark transferred control over natural resources to Greenland, marking a major step toward regional autonomy. Yet twelve years later, the Greenlandic government blocked development of Kvanefjeld, citing the presence of uranium mixed with rare earths and the associated environmental and social risks.

At the time, the decision aligned with domestic political priorities and environmental concerns. Today, amid intensifying global competition for raw materials, it is increasingly viewed as strategically questionable.

Europe's Fragmented Arctic Strategy

For years, Europe did not treat Greenland as a key pillar of its own resource security. Only two small mines currently operate on the island, extracting gold and feldspar for the glass and ceramics industries. This limited industrial activity reflects the absence of a coherent European strategy toward Arctic resources.

It was not until 2023 that the European Union signed a memorandum of understanding with Greenland's government on cooperation in mineral extraction. The EU also committed to financing the Malmbjerg molybdenum project to support supplies for the defense industry. Even so, these steps appear late and piecemeal compared to the more decisive actions taken by Washington and Beijing.

The Trump Factor and Rising Pressure

The political dimension further complicates the situation. The return of Donald Trump to the White House in November 2024 has once again placed Greenland at the center of open geopolitical ambitions. The US administration views the island as a crucial element of American defense and a potential source of strategic raw materials.

Threats of force and disregard for traditional diplomatic norms raise concerns that the interests of Greenland's population and European partners could be sidelined. In this context, Europe risks losing influence not only over resource extraction but also over rule-setting in the Arctic more broadly.

Energy Potential and Environmental Limits

Greenland's appeal is not limited to rare earths. According to a 2007 US assessment, the island and its surrounding waters may contain more than 30 billion barrels of oil and natural gas, a volume comparable to US reserves. However, nearly three decades of exploration by companies such as Chevron, ENI, and Shell failed to produce commercially viable results.

In 2021, Greenland's left-leaning government imposed a ban on further oil exploration, citing environmental risks and climate commitments. While consistent with global decarbonization trends, the decision also reduced economic alternatives for the island and reinforced dependence on external subsidies.

A Test of Europe's Strategic Capacity

The European Commission continues to state its commitment to cooperation with Greenland on mineral development, emphasizing that final decisions rest with the Greenlandic people and their elected representatives. Yet under growing pressure from the United States, this cautious approach may prove insufficient.

Greenland, which gained self-rule in 1979 but remains formally part of the Kingdom of Denmark, is increasingly at the center of great-power rivalry. European countries including France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom have acknowledged the primacy of Greenlandic interests and begun discussing a stronger Arctic presence. Without a clear economic strategy and real investment, however, these declarations risk remaining purely symbolic.

The Greenland case highlights a broader European challenge: the inability to translate political values and environmental priorities into a sustainable strategy for resource security. By avoiding active participation in extraction, Europe allows control over critical supply chains to shift to external players. Over the long term, this threatens industrial competitiveness, increases import dependence, and constrains the EU's foreign policy flexibility.