Arctic movement: the situation around Greenland does not affect the Northern Sea Route
The situation around Greenland currently has no effect on the Northern Sea Route, the Russian Foreign Ministry told Izvestia. Moscow's cooperation in the Arctic in the near future will be built primarily with Asian partners. Against this background, the United States is discussing the parameters of possible agreements on the island. According to media reports, Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland will remain, but Washington may receive special treatment for military installations and access to raw materials projects. At the same time, investments are needed for the development of deposits, which, according to Izvestia estimates, can reach $50 billion. Experts warn that resources are a story about the future for the United States, and now they are more concerned about security issues.
Greenland does not affect the Northern Sea Route
The US Arctic agenda in Greenland is increasingly linked to issues of strategic security in the region. In particular, the head of the White House, Donald Trump, has repeatedly stated that Washington needs the island "to keep Russia and China away."
"There is no need to talk about the direct impact of the situation around this island on the development of transport and logistics routes in the north of our country at this stage," the Russian Foreign Ministry told Izvestia. "In addition, Russia's foreign economic cooperation in the Arctic, including on the Northern Sea Route, will develop in the foreseeable future primarily with Asian partners geographically located in a completely different direction from Greenland."
In practice, the NSR is increasingly being used as a shorter route between Asia and Europe, with Russia acting as the link. In October 2025, Rosatom held another meeting on the Northern Sea Route within the framework of the Russian-Chinese intergovernmental commission. The 23rd Russian-Indian summit was also held in December 2025. At the meeting, the parties separately highlighted the Arctic theme — regular consultations and the development of logistics corridors.
"Nevertheless, the geopolitical configuration in the region, especially in a changing climate, is not static, which will require a careful analysis of the current situation to ensure that it meets the national interests of our country," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
In parallel, the contours of the Greenland deal are becoming more and more distinct. Despite Trump's demands in Davos to immediately begin negotiations on the "acquisition" of Greenland, the media reported that the sale of the island to the United States is not expected. As part of the deal, Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland is preserved, but the Americans get more opportunities to expand their infrastructure.
In an interview with Fox Business, Trump said: the United States will not have to pay anything for Greenland, Washington will be able to get all the necessary military access to the island. Similar to the UK's agreement with Cyprus, these bases will be considered US territory. In addition, Greenland will participate in the Golden Dome missile defense system.
Apparently, after agreeing on the approximate outlines of the deal, separate negotiations between the United States, Denmark and Greenland itself should begin. Another point of the agreement should be access to mining projects for Washington. However, it is the resource part of the potential arrangements that looks the most difficult due to the cost of work and environmental constraints.
Will the US be able to develop resources in Greenland
Greenland is indeed rich in minerals, but this is more of a story "for the future," political analyst Alexander Dudchak told Izvestia. Currently, mining is difficult and expensive. Moreover, the extraction of a number of resources is subject to environmental restrictions: for example, in 2021, the authorities of Greenland abandoned projects related to uranium precisely for environmental reasons.
Interest in raw materials is fueled by large-scale assessments of the subsurface. In total, 25 out of 34 types of critically important minerals have been identified in Greenland, rare earth elements are estimated at about 1.5 million tons of proven reserves and up to 36 million tons of estimated reserves. According to the American Action Forum (AAF) research center, the island's natural resources are estimated at $4.44 trillion. However, this is only a potential indicator — the raw materials still need to be extracted from the ground. In order to start full-fledged field development, it is necessary to build production, energy and logistics.
The mining industry on the island is poorly developed: according to open data, by 2025 only some small facilities were operating, and large projects remained at the stage of research and disputes. Greenland conditions dramatically increase the cost of development, and any actions in this area require their own transportation solutions — roads from deposits to the coast, ports, power lines and housing for workers, that is, in fact, creating an industry from scratch.
One of the promising projects, the Tanbriz rare earth deposit, was estimated at $550 million in investments for launch alone. In addition, the mining and processing complex would require new facilities, which means additional costs and deadlines. Therefore, even under favorable conditions, the first tangible results in production would appear in 10-15 years.
And we are talking only about resources that require an acceptable level of civilian infrastructure to extract them. Izvestia estimates that Washington would have to spend up to $50 billion on such modernization.
Denmark is already investing in this area. So, in 2025, $253 million was allocated for an airstrip in remote Illokkortoormiut and a deep-water port in Kakortok, and earlier, together with Greenland, more than $700 million was invested in the construction of three new runways for direct communication with North America and Europe. At the same time, the United States may not develop civilian infrastructure.
— A lot depends on the goal. If the goal is to increase production "at any cost", ignoring the environmental agenda, this is one scenario. If, as Trump says, the priority is security and the expansion of the military presence, then the logic is different: new facilities are needed, including runways for heavy aircraft, which means direct military spending and investments in infrastructure," Dudchak said.
At the same time, Washington has not publicly rejected the option in which the United States can buy the island from Denmark. According to experts, if Greenland becomes another US state, Washington will have to spend no less on it than Denmark.
— If the United States does not want to completely antagonize the islanders, then at least in the early years they will need to make up for the Danish non-targeted transfer to Greenland. For the next four years, it is set at 4.5 billion Danish crowns per year, which is 53.8% of the total revenue of the island budget for 2026. At the current exchange rate, this is $707 million," Andrei Krivorotov, Acting Head of the Innovation Management Department at the Odintsovo branch of the MGIMO University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, said in a conversation with Izvestia.
The Danish Institute for International Studies estimates autonomy support at about $12,500 per person per year. By comparison, the United States spends about $2,000 per capita in its Pacific territories. In other words, in order for the people of Greenland not to feel the deterioration, Washington would have to set the cost per islander at about six times the usual amount for its small territories. And at the same time, pay for the Danish social model, including free healthcare. At the same time, even within the United States, they believe that such expenses are costly.
— I have seen arguments on unofficial Trumpist websites that Greenland, with its 57,000 people, will not be able to become a full-fledged state, but only a dependent territory of the United States, like the island of Guam with a comparable population. Let me remind you that Alaska, acquired from Russia in 1867, acquired the status of a state only 92 years later, and the Virgin Islands, purchased from Denmark in 1917, remain a territory to this day and live in poverty," added Krivorotov.
Politicians in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, traditionally consider the Arctic, including their own Alaska, only in terms of its resource potential — military, strategic and transit location, natural resources - which must be developed in the most economical way, the expert concluded.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
