What Does the Greenland Agreement Mean for Europe?

Greenland, Denmark and the EU Had No Realistic Alternatives

Europe is in such a precarious shortage of resources, both energy and critical minerals, that there were no realistic alternatives. Critical minerals and rare earth elements are essential for weapons production and advanced military equipment. The demand for energy and mineral raw materials in a war is enormous. The EU's actual mineral situation is classified, but it is assumed that the EU only has mineral stockpiles for four months in a war, read more here.

The situation became even more strained for the EU when the US entered into a minerals agreement with Ukraine in April 2025. The agreement established a joint investment fund to which Ukraine contributes 50% of the revenue from new natural resource licences, and the US gained preferential rights to invest in and purchase the resources.

It is difficult to see what the EU has achieved by waiting so long to reach an agreement on Greenland. Under Trump, the EU economy has seen weak growth, inflation has risen from 2.0 to 3.2 percent, unemployment has increased to 6.4 percent and exports to the US have fallen by 26 percent.

At the same time, the population has become politically polarised as European leaders have responded to American conservatism by flirting with communist China, read more here.

The Greenland Agreement is a significant defeat for the EU, which the European mainstream media is unlikely to comment on.

But it may point to a resolution of the mineral conflict between the EU and the US, even though it was the US that unilaterally had its demands met. Even so, there is unlikely to be a permanent solution until the EU itself signs a minerals agreement with the US, read more here.

The latest developments between the EU and Canada, where they will enter into a formal alliance, could become an obstacle to a more stable relationship between the US and the EU. This is because critical minerals are also a central issue in the trade conflict between the US and Canada, read more here.

Minerals from Greenland and Canada are, moreover, of little value to the EU if the US is an enemy, as the transport routes could be cut off.

Norway Is the EU's Last Mineral Straw

Like Greenland, Norway has a strategic location in the Arctic and large deposits of critical minerals. The Fen Complex in Telemark holds Europe's largest known deposit of rare earth elements and is believed to be the third largest in the world after deposits in Brazil and China. The EU's own territories contain only modest mineral resources.

The relationship between Norway and the US is ice-cold, partly because Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has made promises he has not kept. In a congratulatory letter to Trump after he won the presidential election in November 2024, Støre promised deliveries of critical minerals to the US. Just months later, in March 2025, the Norwegian government issued a press release stating that it is working to incorporate the EU's mineral legislation, the CRMA, into Norwegian law, which would give the EU authority over Norwegian mineral resources. Read the details of the very strained situation between Norway and the US here.

More than 17 months after Trump announced the tariffs on the so-called «Liberation Day» on 2 April 2025, Norway has still not concluded a trade agreement with the US. As a result, Norway has no tariff cap and is therefore harder hit than the EU by the tariffs introduced so far. The US has Norway in its sights for several tariffs. In April, S&P warned that the US could use Norway as a pawn in the trade and mineral battle with the EU by declaring Norway an American security concern due to its location in the Arctic and its mineral resources, read more here.

Norway will remain central to the mineral conflict until there is a minerals agreement between the EU and the US, or a minerals agreement between Norway and the US.

It is arguably even harder to see what Norway has gained by delaying an agreement with the US than what the EU gained by delaying for so long. For 17 months, S&P has studied, analysed and reported on the European and American mineral strategies in light of China's mineral dominance. The situation was predictable, as the articles on S&P show, and it is remarkable that thousands of European heads of state, government ministers and diplomats have not found better solutions.

For Norway's future sovereignty, democracy and welfare, the American mineral strategy is far better for Norway than the European one. The Union's trade policy is generally characterised by the fact that where power lies, in Central Europe, industry is dependent on enormous amounts of imported raw materials. When it comes to critical minerals, trade policy is particularly shaped by this phenomenon. The EU's trade policy and single market are hostile to resource owners such as Norway. Iceland has just chosen to refrain from EU membership negotiations for this very reason, read more here.

It is difficult to see any motive for the Labour government's policy other than a decades-long struggle for EU membership, a membership the Norwegian people oppose. If conditions for Norwegian industry become difficult as a result of tariff walls, it will serve the government's case for EU membership, and that is where the motive lies.

As Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg himself writes in his book On My Watch: «No one has fought as hard for the EU as I have.»