Балтийский регион
Baltic Region
ISSN: 2079-8555 (Print)
ISSN: 2310-0524 (Online)
ENG | RUS
Генерировать XML(ENG) для:
Генерировать XML(RUS) для:
The evolution of U.S. policy toward Greenland: military-strategic and diplomatic aspects (1941—1968)
Pages 66-94

The evolution of U.S. policy toward Greenland: military-strategic and diplomatic aspects (1941—1968)

DOI:
10.5922/2079-8555-2026-2-4

Abstract

The article examines the formation and evolution of the U.S. policy toward Greenland between 1941 and 1968. The purpose of the study is to identify how Greenland’s place in American foreign policy and defence planning evolved over time, as well as to determine the role of interagency coordination in shaping Washington’s policy toward Greenland. The research is based on declassified archival materials from U.S. foreign policy, intelligence, and military agencies, many of which are introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time. These materials make it possible to trace the relationship between U.S. strategic objectives, the dynamics of bilateral relations with Denmark, and the development of Arctic infrastructure. The study finds that Greenland’s significance for the United States gradually extended beyond the requirements of local defence and became part of a broader strategy of containing the Soviet Union. It demonstrates that, at different stages, Washington combined diplomatic flexibility with a persistent commitment to maintaining a long-term military presence on the island. Particular attention is paid to the changing functions of American military infrastructure in Greenland as nuclear strategy, delivery systems, and early-warning capabilities evolved. The article concludes that U.S. policy toward Greenland was shaped not by a single factor but by a combination of strategic, diplomatic, and institutional interests. It further argues that the crisis surrounding the American military presence in 1968, triggered by the crash of a U.S. bomber carrying nuclear weapons, revealed the limitations of the previous model of bilateral cooperation.

Abstract