• The Middle Ground
  • Posts
  • VP Vance Visits Greenland as Trump Says He Will Go as Far as Needed to Take It Over

VP Vance Visits Greenland as Trump Says He Will Go as Far as Needed to Take It Over

This debate is less about facts and more about framing: assertive national security vs. respect for sovereignty and diplomacy. Both sides acknowledge Greenland’s value—but they differ deeply on how and whether the U.S. should pursue greater influence there.

March 28, 2025

The Basics:
​Vice President JD Vance visited Greenland today, touring the Pituffik Space Base with National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright. The visit, initially planned to include engagements like a cultural tour by Usha Vance, was scaled back to the base due to local objections.

During his visit, Vance criticized Denmark’s handling of Greenland, saying it had “not done a good job by the people of Greenland,” especially increased Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. President Trump doubled down, declaring that the United States “needs Greenland” and will “go as far as we have to go” to secure it, citing its strategic importance to international security.

Both statements come amid protests in Nuuk and formal pushback from Danish and Greenlandic leaders, who reiterated Greenland’s place within the Kingdom of Denmark and rejected any notion of U.S. control. Greenland’s new coalition government, formed hours before Vance’s arrival, declared, “Greenland belongs to us.”

🔵 The Left’s Perspective:
Left-leaning voices are critical of both the visit and the rhetoric surrounding it, characterizing the administration’s stance as imperialist and diplomatically reckless.

Many on the Left see Trump’s push for control over Greenland as a revival of colonial attitudes, ignoring the sovereignty of both Denmark and the Greenlandic people. Critics argue that Greenlanders have not asked to become part of the U.S., and framing the island as a security asset reduces its people to a strategic afterthought. They warn that this approach risks damaging U.S. credibility abroad, particularly with allies who may view this as a coercive land grab.

Progressives also highlight the Arctic’s environmental stakes, arguing that militarization distracts from urgent climate cooperation needed in the region. Progressive leaders emphasize that the U.S. should focus on collaborating with Greenland and Denmark, not pressuring them.

🔴 The Right’s Perspective:
Conservative voices are favorable of Vance’s visit and Trump’s firm stance, framing it as a necessary assertion of U.S. leadership in the Arctic.

They believe Vance’s comments that Denmark has underinvested in Greenland, leaving the region vulnerable to Russia and China. From this perspective, securing Greenland is not about imperialism, it’s about national security, global competition, and American resilience. The Arctic is seen as a critical frontier in future energy, trade, and defense strategy, and the U.S. must act decisively to ensure it is not outmaneuvered by adversaries.

Some on the Right even suggest that Greenlanders might eventually choose affiliation with the U.S., given the potential for greater development and protection. Many on the Right believe the U.S. can offer Greenland more investment, economic opportunity, and military security than Denmark can, arguing that the people of Greenland would ultimately benefit from an American partnership.

⚖️ The Middle Ground:
The rising tension over Greenland highlights a clash between global strategy and national sovereignty. The Right sees Greenland as a critical defense asset and believes bold moves are required to stay ahead of rival powers. The Left sees those same moves as overreaching and dismissive of local voices.

The Middle Ground recognizes that Greenland’s strategic importance is undeniable, but also that international norms and the will of the Greenlandic people must be central to any engagement. Pressuring a partner nation, or treating territory as a geopolitical bargaining chip, risks long-term diplomatic damage. Existing U.S.-Denmark defense agreements, like those governing Pituffik, already provide a foundation for collaboration.

Instead, the U.S. could strengthen its position through investment, partnership, and mutual security cooperation with both Greenland and Denmark. Arctic influence doesn’t require ownership, it requires trust, respect, and shared interest.

Language Differences:

🔵 Left-Leaning Language: “Colonial behavior,” “Greenlanders aren’t property,” “Respect sovereignty.”

🔴 Right-Leaning Language: “Strategic necessity,” “Denmark failed Greenland,” “The U.S. must act now.”

Reply

or to participate.