world order – Air Marshal's Perspective

May 7, 2025May 7, 2025

670: COLD WAR 2.0: MILITARY ASPECTS AND IMPACT ON INDIAN SECURITY

My contribution to the book

“Cold War 2.0 and India”

The world is witnessing the emergence of a new Cold War, often referred to as Cold War 2.0, primarily driven by intensifying geopolitical, economic, and technological rivalries between the United States and China, with Russia playing a significant role. Unlike the ideological battle of the original Cold War, this modern conflict is fuelled by strategic competition for global influence, military dominance, and economic control. Key drivers of Cold War 2.0 include China’s rise as a military and technological superpower, the US-led effort to counterbalance Beijing’s influence, and Russia’s challenge to Western dominance. Arms build-ups, strategic alliances, hybrid warfare, and advancements in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, space warfare, and hypersonic missiles mainly characterise Cold War 2.0. For India, this renewed great-power rivalry presents both opportunities and challenges. Understanding the military dimensions of Cold War 2.0 is crucial and necessary for analysing its impact on global stability, the evolving nature of warfare, and the strategic recalibrations required for nations like India to safeguard their security interests.

Drivers of Cold War 2.0

The re-emergence of great power competition in the 21st century has led to a period characterised by heightened strategic rivalry between the United States and China, with Russia playing a significant but secondary role. Unlike the original Cold War, which was primarily an ideological struggle between capitalism and communism, this new iteration is driven by geopolitical, economic, technological, and military factors. These factors have reshaped the global order and fuelled an environment of sustained strategic hostility, making Cold War 2.0 a defining feature of contemporary international relations.

One of the most significant drivers of Cold War 2.0 is the rise of China as a global superpower, challenging the longstanding dominance of the United States. Over the past four decades, China has undergone an economic and military transformation that has propelled it to the forefront of global politics. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s massive infrastructure and investment project spanning Asia, Africa, and Europe, has been a key instrument in expanding Beijing’s influence. While China claims that the BRI is purely an economic initiative, Western policymakers see it as a geopolitical tool to increase China’s leverage over developing nations. Furthermore, China’s military expansion, most notably in the South China Sea, has alarmed the United States and its regional allies. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has also aggressively pursued technological dominance, particularly in fields such as artificial intelligence, 5G, and quantum computing. The rapid ascendance of China as a comprehensive power has disrupted the global balance, triggering countermeasures from the United States, including trade restrictions, sanctions on Chinese technology firms, and strengthened military alliances in the Indo-Pacific. This great power rivalry, rooted in China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony, is a fundamental driver of Cold War 2.0.

The second major driver of this new Cold War is the resurgence of Russia as a revisionist state seeking to undermine Western influence and reassert its geopolitical ambitions. Although Russia lacks comparative economic power, it remains a formidable military force with vast energy resources and a willingness to engage in aggressive foreign policies. The war in Ukraine has strengthened the perception of a new Cold War, with Russia aligning itself more closely with China, Iran, and North Korea to counterbalance Western power. Russia’s actions have not only escalated tensions with the United States and Europe but have also contributed to a broader global realignment, with countries being forced to take sides in this emerging bipolar struggle.

The erosion of American unipolarity and the fragmentation of the liberal international order have also played a crucial role in driving Cold War 2.0. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the world’s sole superpower, ushering in a period of unchallenged American dominance. However, U.S. global influence has waned in recent years due to domestic political polarisation, costly military interventions, and economic challenges. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drained American resources. They damaged its credibility, while the rise of populist movements and political divisions have weakened Washington’s ability to project unified global leadership. The decline of unipolarity has created a more competitive and unstable international system, where power is increasingly distributed among multiple actors, setting the stage for heightened strategic rivalry.

Economic decoupling and technological competition between the United States and China constitute another major driver of Cold War 2.0. The global economy, once characterised by deep interdependence, is now experiencing a shift toward fragmentation as Washington and Beijing seek to reduce their reliance on each other. The U.S. has imposed sweeping restrictions on Chinese technology firms, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications, citing national security concerns. In response, China has accelerated its efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in critical industries, investing heavily in indigenous innovation and supply chain resilience. This technological decoupling is not just an economic issue—it has profound military and strategic implications, as control over emerging technologies will determine the balance of power in future conflicts. The race for supremacy in AI, quantum computing, cyber warfare, and space exploration is now a central battlefield in Cold War 2.0, with both sides striving to outmanoeuvre each other in the next frontier of global dominance.

Finally, the ideological and political divide between democratic and authoritarian systems has reinforced the divisions of Cold War 2.0. The United States and its allies promote liberal democracy, human rights, and a rules-based international order. Meanwhile, China and Russia advocate for state sovereignty, authoritarian stability, and non-interference in domestic affairs. The contrast between these governance models has led to intensified ideological competition, with both sides seeking to expand their influence globally. The U.S. has framed its rivalry with China and Russia as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, rallying allies to counter Beijing’s and Moscow’s influence in international institutions. Meanwhile, China’s “Global Security Initiative” aim to portray the West as a declining power, promoting an alternative world order.

Military Aspects of Cold War 2.0

The evolving geopolitical landscape of the 21st century has increasingly drawn comparisons to the original Cold War. The military dimension of Cold War 2.0 is particularly critical, as it shapes global security dynamics through arms races, power projection, strategic alliances, and hybrid warfare. The military aspect of this renewed competition manifests in several key areas.

One of the most visible military aspects of Cold War 2.0 is the modernisation and expansion of nuclear arsenals. While the U.S. and Russia still maintain the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, China’s rapid nuclear build-up has become a central concern for Western policymakers. Unlike during the first Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet Union were the primary nuclear superpowers, the emergence of China as a third major nuclear player significantly altered the strategic calculus. Beijing has also been expanding its missile silos, developing hypersonic delivery systems, and pursuing advanced nuclear-powered submarines, signalling its intent to establish a more robust second-strike capability. At the same time, Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty, coupled with its threats of tactical nuclear weapon use in Ukraine, has reignited fears of a new nuclear arms race. The U.S., in response, is modernising its nuclear triad, investing heavily in next-generation intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), stealth bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. These developments indicate that nuclear deterrence strategies are again at the forefront of great power competition.

Beyond nuclear weapons, conventional military capabilities have also been undergoing significant transformation. The trend is towards increased investment in stealth aircraft, long-range precision strike systems, autonomous combat platforms, and integrated air and missile defence networks. For its part, China has undertaken one of the most extensive military modernisation programs in history. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has rapidly expanded its naval and air forces. Despite economic constraints, Russia has focused on asymmetric warfare strategies, leveraging advanced air defence systems, hypersonic missiles, and electronic warfare capabilities.

A defining feature of Cold War 2.0 is the race for military superiority in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and autonomous warfare. Unlike the first Cold War, where military advancements were primarily centred on nuclear and conventional weaponry, digital and cyber capabilities are expected to shape modern conflicts. AI-driven autonomous drones, robotic combat units, and cyber warfare tools have become central to military planning. Quantum computing, if fully realised, could render current encryption methods obsolete, drastically altering cyber defence strategies. The cyber domain has emerged as a battlefield, with state-sponsored cyber attacks targeting critical infrastructure, defence networks, and economic systems. As nations develop offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, the risk of cyber escalation and strategic instability increases significantly.

Hybrid warfare, a strategy that blends conventional military tactics with cyber, economic, and information warfare, has also become a defining characteristic of Cold War 2.0. China employs hybrid tactics involving disinformation campaigns, cyber-attacks, and proxy militias, leveraging economic coercion, political influence operations, and grey-zone warfare. The U.S. and its allies have responded with countermeasures, including economic sanctions, cyber counteroffensives, and the strengthening of information warfare capabilities. Unlike the Cold War of the 20th century, where direct military confrontations were largely avoided, the modern iteration features a greater degree of low intensity. These asymmetric conflicts blur the line between war and peace.

Impact of Cold War 2.0 on Indian Security

The emergence of a second Cold War has profound implications for India’s security. One of the most immediate effects of Cold War 2.0 on India is the increased militarisation of the Indo-Pacific region. As the United States seeks to contain China’s growing military and economic influence, it has strengthened its ties with allies and partners. This has enhanced defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint military exercises. It has drawn India into the broader US-China confrontation, making it a target for Chinese actions, such as aggressive border moves, cyber warfare, and economic coercion. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash between Indian and Chinese forces was a stark reminder of how geopolitical tensions manifest as direct security threats for India.

Another major concern is the growing China-Pakistan nexus, which has intensified in response to Cold War 2.0. China has significantly increased its defence, economic, and nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, which directly impacts India’s security. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), challenging India’s territorial claims. China’s supply of advanced military hardware, including fighter jets, submarines, and missile systems, has strengthened Pakistan’s military capabilities, altering South Asia’s conventional and nuclear balance. There are also concerns that China could use Pakistan as a proxy to destabilise India.

India’s maritime security has also been affected as Cold War 2.0 extends into the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). China has expanded its naval footprint through bases in Djibouti and potential dual-use facilities in Sri Lanka, Pakistan (Gwadar), and Myanmar. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has increased its submarine patrols and surveillance activities near India’s maritime boundaries, challenging India’s dominance in its strategic backyard.

Technological competition in Cold War 2.0 also affects India’s security, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), cyber security, and space warfare. The US and China are engaged in a technological arms race, and India must navigate this landscape carefully. Increased focus on Indigenous defence production under “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (self-reliant India) is a direct consequence of this competition.

Diplomatically, Cold War 2.0 presents India with both challenges and opportunities. While the US-India partnership has grown stronger, India remains cautious about being seen as a mere US ally. India has historically valued its strategic autonomy, as seen in its continued engagement with Russia despite Western pressure. India relies on Russian military hardware, including S-400 missile systems, and has resisted aligning too closely with US-led security pacts. However, this balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult as Cold War 2.0 escalates, forcing India to make difficult choices.

Economically, Cold War 2.0 presents risks for India’s trade and supply chain security. The US-China decoupling has disrupted global trade, affecting India’s access to key technologies, raw materials, and markets. The push for friend-shoring and near-shoring has led companies to diversify supply chains, offering India an opportunity to attract investments as an alternative manufacturing hub. However, China remains one of India’s largest trading partners, and an outright economic confrontation would be costly. India must, therefore, navigate a complex economic environment, securing its interests without alienating key partners.

Conclusion

Cold War 2.0 has fundamentally reshaped the global security landscape, with military competition emerging as a key aspect of great-power rivalry. Driven by China’s rise, Russia’s resurgence, and the United States’ efforts to maintain its strategic dominance, this new geopolitical contest is marked by military build-ups, shifting alliances, and technological arms races. The military developments have made the world more unstable, with regional conflicts and proxy wars serving as potential flashpoints for broader confrontations. For India, Cold War 2.0 presents both security threats and strategic opportunities. The growing China-Pakistan nexus and Beijing’s assertiveness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) pose direct military challenges to India. The militarisation of the Indian Ocean, the threat of cyber warfare, and disruptions to global supply chains further complicate India’s security environment. To navigate this evolving conflict, India must bolster its military capabilities, strengthen regional partnerships, and maintain its strategic autonomy to avoid outright confrontation. As Cold War 2.0 continues to unfold, the global military balance will be shaped by how nations adapt to this new era of great-power competition, making it essential for India to proactively safeguard its national security while leveraging opportunities to enhance its geopolitical standing.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References:-

Khosla Anil, “Cold War Redux: Military Aspects of Cold War 2.0”, 16 Dec 24, https://55nda.com/blogs/anil-khosla/2024/12/16/558-cold-war-redux-military-aspects-of-cold-war-2-0/

Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

Kaplan, Robert D. The Return of Marco Polo’s World: War, Strategy, and American Interests in the Twenty-First Century. Random House, 2018.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated ed., W.W. Norton & Co., 2014.

Gady, Franz-Stefan. “The Future of High-End Warfare: What the Next US-China Conflict Could Look Like.” The Diplomat, 2023.

Doshi, Rush. The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Mazarr, Michael J., et al. Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. RAND Corporation, 2018.

Nye, J. S. (2012). The future of power in the 21st century. Foreign Affairs, 91(2), 90–104.

Menon, Shivshankar. India and Asian Geopolitics: The Past, Present. Brookings Institution Press, 2021.

Pant, Harsh V. The US Pivot and Indian Foreign Policy: Asia’s Evolving Balance of Power. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Shankar, Arvind. “India’s Role in a Fragmented Global Order.” The Print, 2023.

Mohan, C. Raja. Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2012.

Singh, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra. “The Impact of US-China Rivalry on India’s Defence Strategy.” Observer Research Foundation, 2023.

Rajagopalan, Rajeswari Pillai. Space and Nuclear Deterrence in Indo-Pacific: A New Strategic Triangle. Observer Research Foundation, 2022.

April 5, 2025April 4, 2025

640: NATO’S RELEVANCE IN TODAY’S WORLD ORDER

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in 1949 as a direct response to the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Built upon the principle of collective defence, enshrined in Article 5 of its founding treaty, NATO played a pivotal role in maintaining transatlantic security during the second half of the 20th century. However, in the post-Cold War era, NATO’s relevance has been increasingly questioned due to shifting global power dynamics, emerging security threats, and internal divisions among member states. While NATO remains a significant military alliance, its ability to adapt to contemporary security challenges will determine its continued importance in the evolving world order.

The Cold War’s End and the Loss of a Defined Adversary. NATO was created primarily to counter the Soviet Union and its communist bloc. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the alliance lost its primary adversary, creating uncertainty about its purpose. The following decades saw NATO struggling to redefine its role as the global security landscape shifted away from Cold War-style confrontations. While NATO expanded its membership and engaged in various global missions, critics argue that the absence of a direct military threat comparable to the Soviet Union has undermined its necessity.

Reduced Military Engagements and Shifting Priorities. In the post-Cold War era, NATO took on out-of-area missions, notably in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, demonstrating its role in global security. However, its military engagements have become more restrained in recent years. The withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and the reluctance of many European nations to involve themselves in conflicts beyond their immediate borders signal a decreasing appetite for large-scale NATO-led interventions. This shift has raised questions about NATO’s continued role as an active military force or whether it is becoming more of a political and diplomatic entity.

Evolving Threats: Cyber Warfare, Terrorism, and Hybrid Conflicts. Modern security threats have evolved beyond conventional military conflicts. Cyber warfare, terrorism, pandemics, and economic crises increasingly define global security concerns. NATO has attempted to adapt by enhancing its cyber defence capabilities and counter-terrorism strategies. However, critics argue that these new threats often require diplomatic, economic, and technological responses rather than purely military solutions, making other organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) more relevant in addressing such challenges.

Multipolarity and the Shift toward Asia. The global power structure is transitioning from a unipolar world dominated by the United States to a multipolar system in which China, Russia, and other regional actors exert significant influence. This shift challenges NATO’s traditional dominance. The rise of China and its increasing military modernisation, alongside new security alliances like AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) and the Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia), suggest that the Indo-Pacific region is becoming a greater priority for NATO’s key member, the United States (Brookings Institution, 2024). As a result, NATO’s Euro-Atlantic focus risks diminishing in importance, particularly as Washington recalibrates its strategic priorities toward the Indo-Pacific.

Divergent Security Interests among NATO Members. NATO members increasingly have divergent security concerns. While Eastern European countries prioritise the threat from Russia, Western European nations emphasise diplomatic solutions and strategic autonomy. Meanwhile, Turkey pursues its regional agenda in the Middle East, often clashing with broader NATO objectives. These competing interests create friction within the alliance and raise doubts about its long-term cohesion.

Burden-Sharing and Defence Spending Disputes. One of NATO’s most persistent internal challenges is burden-sharing. The 2014 NATO Summit set a target for member states to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, yet as of 2023, only 11 out of 31 members met this goal (The Economist, 2024). The United States, which contributes disproportionately to NATO’s military budget, has repeatedly criticised its European allies for failing to uphold their financial commitments. These disparities fuel tensions and questions about NATO’s sustainability if burden-sharing remains unbalanced.

NATO’s Provocative Expansion. Since 1999, NATO has added 14 former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states to its membership, exacerbating tensions with Russia. Critics argue that NATO’s eastward expansion has contributed to geopolitical conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. Russia perceives NATO’s enlargement as a direct security threat, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine can, in part, be seen as Moscow’s pushback against NATO’s growing footprint in Eastern Europe. While NATO insists on its open-door policy, some analysts caution that continued expansion risks further escalating tensions with Russia without necessarily increasing European security.

The Rise of Alternative Security Frameworks. As NATO grapples with internal divisions, other international alliances emerge as alternative security structures. Organisations like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) present non-Western frameworks for economic and security cooperation. The European Union (EU) has also pursued greater military autonomy through initiatives like PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), signalling a potential shift away from US-led security arrangements. If Europe continues to develop independent defence capabilities, NATO’s role as the continent’s primary security guarantor could diminish.

NATO’s Strength: Adaptation and Collective Defence. Despite these challenges, NATO remains the world’s most powerful military alliance, providing collective security and deterrence. Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all and remains a core pillar of transatlantic security. NATO has also adapted to modern threats by creating rapid response forces, strengthening its cyber defence strategies, and increasing cooperation in hybrid warfare tactics. These adaptations ensure that NATO remains relevant in key areas, even as its global dominance faces competition.

NATO’s Future in an Evolving Global Order. NATO’s relevance in the modern world order is contested. On one hand, the alliance remains a critical security framework for Western democracies, deterring aggression and maintaining transatlantic cohesion. On the other hand, shifting geopolitical priorities, internal divisions, and the rise of alternative security alliances present significant challenges to its continued dominance.

Conclusion. Ultimately, NATO’s future will depend on its ability to adapt to new security threats and navigate internal fractures while remaining a key player in global stability. Whether NATO will evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century or gradually cede influence to emerging security frameworks remains one of the most pressing questions in contemporary international relations.

Please Enhance the content further with value addition.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Andersen, L. R. (2021). The challenges of NATO burden-sharing. Global Affairs, 7(2), 185-202.

BBC News. (2023). NATO expansion: What it means for global security. Retrieved from [URL]

Brookings Institution. (2024). NATO and the rise of China: A strategic outlook.

Chatham House. (2021). The future of NATO: Adapting to a multipolar world.

European Parliament. (2022). The EU and NATO: Cooperation and challenges.

NATO. (2023). Cyber security and hybrid warfare initiatives.

Walt, S. M. (2022). NATO’s role in a changing global order. Foreign Affairs, 101(3), 45–58.

March 7, 2025March 5, 2025

611: GREENLAND’S RISING IMPORTANCE: A STRATEGIC ASSET IN GLOBAL SECURITY

My Article published in the Newsanalytics Journal Mar 25.

Greenland is the world’s largest island, located in the Arctic, to the northeast of Canada. Politically, it is an autonomous territory of Denmark, though it has its own government and parliament. With a landmass of approximately 2.16 million square kilometers, Greenland is sparsely populated, with a population of around 56,000 people, most of whom live along the island’s coast. The majority of Greenland’s land is covered by an ice sheet, which holds a significant portion of the world’s freshwater. This ice sheet is vital to global climate patterns, as its melting could raise sea levels and disrupt ocean currents. While Greenland is rich in natural resources such as minerals, oil, and gas, its remote location and harsh environment make resource extraction challenging. Due to its strategic location, it has historically been important to both European and American interests, particularly during the Cold War, when the U.S. established military bases there.

Recent Limelight. Greenland has recently been at the center of international attention due to renewed interest from the United States in acquiring the territory. In December 2024, President Donald Trump reiterated his proposal for the U.S. to purchase Greenland from Denmark, citing national security concerns. This proposal builds upon a similar offer made during his first term, which was declined by the Danish government. In response to these developments, 85% of Greenlanders oppose the idea of becoming part of the United States. Greenland’s Prime Minister, Múte Egede, has emphasised that while Greenland is open to discussions about common interests with the U.S., the island is not for sale. The situation has led to increased diplomatic activity, with Denmark announcing plans to invest 14.6 billion crowns ($2.04 billion) to bolster its military presence in the Arctic. European leaders have also expressed support for Denmark, highlighting Greenland’s strategic importance in global geopolitics. These events underscore Greenland’s significant role in international affairs, particularly concerning Arctic sovereignty, natural resources, and global security dynamics.

Greenland’s Resource Potential. Greenland has vast natural resources, including rare earth elements, uranium, oil, and gas. These resources are essential for global industries, including defence, technology, and renewable energy. While Greenland’s government has moved away from oil exploration, its untapped reserves remain a strategic interest for global energy markets. Greenland’s waters are among the richest fishing grounds, a key economic driver and a point of interest for international players. As climate change makes resource extraction more feasible, Greenland faces a dilemma between economic development and environmental protection. Foreign mining and energy investment must balance economic benefits with sustainability concerns and geopolitical risks.

Strategic Location: Trade Routes. Greenland’s location in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions makes it an invaluable strategic asset. It lies between North America and Europe, serving as a crucial link for military and trade operations. The island provides access to key shipping lanes, including the emerging Arctic sea routes, which are becoming more navigable. As Arctic ice melts, new shipping lanes such as the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route are opening up, reducing travel distances between Asia, Europe, and North America. Control over Greenland enhances the ability to monitor and regulate these routes, making it a strategic chokepoint in global trade.

Strategic Location: Militarily: Additionally, Greenland’s airspace and maritime routes are crucial for transatlantic military logistics. In any potential conflict in the North Atlantic, control over Greenland would be pivotal for ensuring dominance in the region. Greenland provides a staging ground for air and naval operations in both the Atlantic and Arctic, making it essential for NATO’s security umbrella. The U.S. maintains Thule Air Base in northern Greenland, a key component of the North American early-warning defence system. Thule is home to a ballistic missile early warning radar and a deep-space surveillance system.

Superpower Rivalries in Greenland

The Arctic as a New Global Arena. Greenland, the world’s largest island, has become an increasingly significant player in global geopolitics. Its strategic position in the Arctic, vast natural resources, and the effects of climate change have heightened interest from global superpowers such as the United States, Russia, and China. As geopolitical tensions rise, Greenland’s role in security, trade, and military strategy continues to expand, making it a focal point of international competition.

U.S. Interests and Military Presence. The United States has long viewed Greenland as an essential part of its Arctic strategy and has maintained a strategic presence in Greenland for decades. During World War II, the U.S. took over defence responsibilities for Greenland from Denmark to prevent German occupation. Since then, it has remained a key ally in Arctic security. In 2019, former U.S. President Donald Trump proposed purchasing Greenland from Denmark, highlighting its strategic importance. Though Denmark and Greenland rejected the proposal, it underscored the island’s increasing geopolitical value. The U.S. has continued to strengthen ties with Greenland through economic aid and security cooperation, recognising its role in countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic.

Russian Expansion in the Arctic. Moscow views the Arctic as crucial for national security, energy extraction, and global influence. Russia has been actively expanding its Arctic military capabilities, reopening Soviet-era bases, deploying new icebreaker ships, and establishing Arctic brigades. The country considers the Arctic a key strategic frontier for national security and resource exploitation. Russia’s growing military infrastructure, including reported hypersonic missile deployments and submarine operations, has heightened concerns among NATO allies.

China’s Economic and Strategic Interests. China identifies itself as a “near-Arctic state” and has actively sought economic opportunities in Greenland, investing heavily in Arctic infrastructure, scientific research, and resource extraction. Greenland’s rare earth minerals are mainly of interest to China, which seeks to diversify its supply chains. China has also pursued scientific research in the Arctic, positioning itself as a key player in Arctic governance. However, its increasing presence has alarmed Western powers, who view Beijing’s activities as part of a broader strategy to expand its geopolitical influence. In 2018, the United States successfully pressured Denmark to block Chinese investments in Greenland’s airport infrastructure, fearing potential military implications. In 2021, Greenland’s newly elected government banned uranium mining, blocking a major Chinese-backed project. This decision was seen as a move to limit Chinese influence in the region and align more closely with Western allies.

Greenland’s Political Landscape and Future Prospects. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own government and growing aspirations for independence. While it relies on Denmark for defence and financial support, Greenland has sought greater economic and political autonomy. For Greenland, balancing economic development with national security concerns remains a challenge. Denmark has recognised Greenland’s strategic importance and has increased its Arctic military budget. In 2024, Denmark announced a $2 billion investment to enhance its Arctic security capabilities, reinforcing its commitment to maintaining stability in the region. The U.S. has shown interest in strengthening ties with Greenland outside of Danish influence and its role in NATO could grow, given its strategic military importance. The island’s leadership must navigate pressures from global powers while ensuring sustainable growth and environmental protection.

Conclusion. Greenland is not just a remote ice-covered island, it is a critical player in global security dynamics. Its location, resources, and military significance make it a key area of interest for major powers, including the United States, Russia, and China. As Arctic geopolitics intensify, Greenland’s strategic importance will only increase. Whether through military cooperation, resource management, or diplomatic engagements, Greenland will remain at the heart of global power dynamics in the 21st century. Ensuring its stability and security will be crucial for maintaining Arctic balance and broader global stability.

Please Do Comment.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

Bader, Julia, and C. D. E. O’Neil. Arctic Geopolitics: Security, Resources, and the Shifting Balance of Power in the Arctic. New York: Routledge, 2019.

Smith, M. L. R. The Arctic and World Order: Climate Change, Security and the Future of the Global Commons. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Friedrich, Daniel, and Stefan Sommer. “Greenland’s Strategic Importance: A New Cold War?” Journal of International Security Studies 28, no. 3 (2022): 45-67.

Young, Oran R. “The Geopolitics of Greenland: Great Power Rivalry in the Arctic.” International Journal of Arctic Studies 13, no. 2 (2019): 103-123.

McGovern, Mike. “Climate Change and the Arctic: Security Risks and Strategic Opportunities.” Security Studies Review 12, no. 4 (2021): 78-94.

Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies. Greenland: A Military Asset for the West? Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies, 2023.

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The Arctic as a Strategic Frontier: Greenland’s Role in U.S. Defense and Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: CSIS, 2020.

RAND Corporation. The Geopolitical Implications of Arctic Resource Extraction and Military Infrastructure in Greenland. Santa Monica: RAND, 2021.

The Guardian. “Greenland’s Changing Role in Global Geopolitics.” The Guardian, July 14, 2023.
BBC News. “Greenland’s Military Significance in the Arctic: A New Era.” BBC News, March 5, 2022.

Foreign Policy. “Greenland’s Geostrategic Location: The Next Global Flashpoint?” Foreign Policy, August 3, 2021.
The Arctic Institute. “Greenland’s Military Infrastructure and U.S. Strategic Interests in the Arctic.” The Arctic Institute, August 2022.

Disclaimer: