Greenland’s geopolitical significance is increasingly viewed through the lens of Thomas Barnett’s re-regionalization framework, which examines how global economic and security realignments are shifting toward regional integration. The debate over Greenland reflects broader trends in economic decoupling, supply chain resilience, and security alliances.

Why This Matters

Greenland’s strategic location and resource potential make it a focal point in U.S. and global security strategies. Thomas Barnett’s framework suggests that economic and security re-regionalization is reshaping global alliances, particularly in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions.

• Greenland is emerging as a geopolitical battleground between China, the U.S., and Europe.
• The debate mirrors larger trends in supply chain resilience, economic decoupling, and security alliances.
• U.S. policy shifts toward Greenland signal a broader push for Arctic strategic control.

Greenland’s geopolitical significance is increasingly viewed through the lens of Thomas Barnett’s re-regionalization framework, which examines how global economic and security realignments are shifting toward regional integration. The debate over Greenland reflects broader trends in economic decoupling, supply chain resilience, and security alliances.

Barnett’s framework suggests that as globalization fractures, nations, and regions are reforming economic and security blocs, a pattern evident in U.S. efforts to deepen ties with Greenland. The United States, China, and European nations are competing for influence over Greenland’s strategic location and critical mineral resources.

Key drivers of this shift include:

• U.S. investments in Greenland’s economy and infrastructure, aligning it more closely with North America.
• China’s diminished but persistent interest in Greenland’s rare earth minerals.
• NATO’s increasing role in Arctic security reinforces Greenland’s importance in Western defense strategies.
• A potential path toward greater North American economic integration, with some speculation about Greenland’s future alignment with an expanded American Union.

Greenland is thus a test case for Barnett’s theory, where economic and military realignments are reshaping traditional global order into regional blocs, particularly in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions.

Explainer: The Geopolitical Significance of Greenland?

Greenland’s strategic location and resource wealth make it a critical player in Arctic geopolitics, drawing increased interest from global powers like the U.S. and China as climate change reshapes trade routes and security dynamics.

Greenland’s geopolitical significance stems from its strategic Arctic location, abundant natural resources, and evolving governance. As melting ice opens new shipping lanes, the island’s role in global trade and military strategy is expanding. The U.S. maintains a strong presence through Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), reinforcing its Arctic defense strategy. Meanwhile, China has sought influence in Greenland’s mining sector, though its foothold has diminished. With vast reserves of rare earth minerals, Greenland is becoming a focal point in the global race for critical resources. As interest from major powers grows, Greenland’s political and economic future remains a key issue in Arctic security and global supply chain resilience.

Key Points

• Barnett’s Re-regionalization: The Greenland debate fits into Thomas Barnett’s framework of re-regionalization, where global networks are shifting due to security threats, economic decoupling, and trade realignments.
• Strategic Interests: The U.S. and China are both vying for influence over Greenland’s rare earth minerals, infrastructure, and Arctic military positioning.
• Policy Shifts: There is increasing U.S. investment in Greenland, signaling a move toward regional economic integration and strategic alignment with North America.
• Decoupling Trend: As seen in Barnett’s work, economic decoupling from China is limiting global integration and driving a return to regional economic blocs.
• American Union Expansion?: Some sources suggest that Greenland’s integration into a larger “American Union” may be under consideration, though speculative.

An Expert in Grand Strategy Thinks Trump Is on to Something

Three key trends animate the globe right now: (a) an East-West decoupling dynamic, (b) a re-regionalization imperative along North-South lines that brings “near-shoring” production close to home markets, and (c) a growing superpower clash animating all these “races” — namely, adapting to climate change, winning the energy transition, achieving AI supremacy, etc.

In his recent article in Politico, “An Expert in Grand Strategy Thinks Trump Is on to Something,” Thomas P.M. Barnett argues that former President Donald Trump’s proposals to acquire territories like Greenland and strengthen ties with Canada reflect a strategic vision aligned with current global trends. Barnett suggests that as globalization faces challenges, nations are shifting focus toward regional integration and securing strategic resources.

While Trump may not speak the same language as Barnett’s arguments in his most recent  America’s New Map: Restoring Our Global Leadership in an Era of Climate Change and Demographic Collapse, his framing of the Greenland debate is instinctively adjacent to the re-regionalization dynamics fleshed out in detail by Barnett.

Barnett contends that Trump’s instincts to expand U.S. influence in the Arctic and North America are timely responses to these dynamics, aiming to bolster America’s position in a multipolar world. Barnett concludes that embracing such expansionist strategies could be crucial for the U.S. to maintain its global standing amid evolving geopolitical landscapes.

What Next?

• Greater U.S. Influence: Expect continued U.S. engagement in Greenland’s infrastructure and resource development.
• Arctic Militarization: The region will likely see increased military activity and surveillance as tensions rise.
• Economic Realignments: Greenland could become a test case for Barnett’s theories on regional economic restructuring, influencing trade and security policy in the Arctic.

Recommendations

• Monitor U.S. Investments: Keep track of how the U.S. government and private sector increase their economic footprint in Greenland.
• Watch China’s Arctic Strategy: China’s interest in Arctic shipping routes and rare earth mining could provoke countermeasures from NATO allies.
• Assess NATO’s Role: Greenland’s security will be increasingly tied to NATO’s Arctic strategy and European security policies.

OODAcon 2024: Navigating the Future – Strategic Insights from America’s New Map

In this OODAcon 2024 session, geostrategist and author Thomas Barnett provided a deep dive into the evolving geopolitical landscape based on his latest book, America’s New Map: Restoring Our Global Leadership in an Era of Climate Change and Demographic Collapse. Barnett offered key insights into the shifting global dynamics and their implications for leaders in business, technology, politics, and national security, emphasizing the strategies needed to navigate this complex future.

Sources Cited

• Explainer: The Geopolitical Significance of Greenland | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
• An Expert in Grand Strategy Thinks Trump Is on to Something – POLITICO
• OODAcon 2024: Navigating the Future – Strategic Insights from America’s New Map — OODAloop
• What “America’s New Map” says about expanding membership in an American Union – by Thomas P. Barnett
• Decoupling is delimiting – by Thomas PM Barnett

A Deeper Dive

In a recent post on his Substack, “America’s New Map: Restoring Our Global Leadership in an Era of Climate Change and Demographic Collapse,” Thomas P.M. Barnett explores the concept of expanding the American Union to include territories like Greenland. He argues that such expansion could enhance the United States’ strategic position in the Arctic, secure critical resources, and strengthen economic and security ties within the North American region. Barnett suggests that integrating Greenland into the American Union aligns with broader trends of re-regionalization, where nations focus on regional alliances to address global challenges such as climate change and shifting demographics. This approach reflects a strategic vision aimed at maintaining and enhancing U.S. global leadership in a rapidly changing world.

In another recent post, “Decoupling is Delimiting,” Thomas P.M. Barnett examines the global trend of economic decoupling, particularly between the United States and China, and its implications for international relations. He argues that as major powers disengage from deeply intertwined economic relationships, they are redefining their strategic boundaries and spheres of influence. This decoupling leads to a more fragmented global landscape, where nations prioritize regional alliances and self-sufficiency over globalization. Barnett suggests that this shift necessitates a reevaluation of traditional geopolitical strategies, emphasizing the importance of adaptability in navigating the emerging multipolar world order.