Greenland: Controlling Flows to Control the Century
What do Singapore, Malta, Egypt, and Panama have in common?
They are not just names on a world map. They are maritime convergence points: crossroads through which billions of tons of goods pass every day—flows that keep the global economy moving and concentrate power, wealth, and influence. These territories have understood one fundamental truth: who controls flows controls the economy.
An article written by Yves Guillo, Expert Director, published in Forbes France.
Greenland: a strategic keystone, not just a territory
Rare earths, oil, gold—yes, Greenland concentrates strategic resources. But reducing global interest in Greenland to a simple inventory of commodities would miss the essential point. The real issue is logistical and military. By virtue of its location, Greenland is becoming a key transit point for Arctic routes, which are set to drastically shorten trade flows between Asia, North America, and Europe. A territory that could soon structure transatlantic and transpacific exchanges. A natural future hub at the heart of the global supply chain.
The United States understands this perfectly. Greenland is already embedded in the U.S. defense architecture, hosting major military installations dedicated to Arctic surveillance and ballistic‑missile trajectories. In American strategic doctrine, the supply chain is inseparable from national security: to control flows is to secure the economy, industrial capacity, and military projection.
Controlling Greenland, therefore, is not merely about securing resources. It means controlling two major maritime corridors within a single territory—one oriented toward the Americas, the other toward Europe. It means transforming a geographic space into a comprehensive strategic lever: economic, logistical, and military.
The United States and the supply chain: an openly acknowledged economic weapon
For at least two decades, the White House has treated supply chains not as neutral infrastructure, but as a core instrument of economic power and national security. Barack Obama stated it unambiguously: “The global supply chain system that supports this trade is essential to the economy and security of the United States.”
Under George W. Bush, when strikes brought West Coast ports to a standstill, the federal government did not hesitate to intervene and force operations to resume in the name of national interest. In the United States, ports are not just infrastructure, they are vital arteries.
More recently, strengthening supply‑chain resilience, reshoring industrial capacity, and securing critical sectors have become explicit political priorities. This mindset extends deep into the private sector. Amazon, FedEx, UPS, and America’s dominance in intermodal logistics all reflect a simple but powerful conviction: whoever controls the supply chain controls the market.
From Maritime Hubs to Arctic Gateways: The Race Is On
History shows that control over strategic chokepoints delivers disproportionate power. Singapore, Suez, and Panama are not mere geographical happenstances; they are the product of deliberate political and strategic decisions.
Today, melting ice is unlocking Arctic routes once considered impassable, positioning Greenland as a pivotal asset in 21st-century global trade. Control of Greenland effectively means oversight of two major intercontinental corridors. This reality is clearly understood in the United States, while Europe continues to approach it with excessive caution—if not outright hesitation.
Europe at a Strategic Crossroads
To concede now would be more than a loss of influence; it would signal acceptance of long-term strategic marginalisation. Greenland is not just a territory, it embodies economic sovereignty, control over critical trade flows, and the capacity to shape the future architecture of global commerce.
In the face of Donald Trump—and, more broadly, an America that openly embraces power politics—Europe must make a choice: react or act. The supply chain has become a central arena of economic competition. Choosing not to engage is, in effect, choosing exclusion.
Original article in French: Groenland : contrôler les flux pour contrôler le siècle – Forbes France