Greenland – U.S. Vice President JD Vance, during a high-profile visit to the American military base in Pituffik, launched a scathing critique of Denmark’s stewardship of Greenland, asserting that the country has failed to adequately secure the semi-autonomous Arctic territory against strategic threats posed by Russia and China.
While addressing U.S. troops stationed at the remote Arctic outpost on Friday, Vance questioned Denmark’s commitment to Greenland’s defense and hinted that the United States would be a more capable guardian of the region’s security and economic potential. The visit stirred a wave of political backlash from Copenhagen and Nuuk, and heightened diplomatic tensions between Washington and its NATO ally.
“Denmark has not kept pace and devoted the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops, and in my view, to keep the people of Greenland safe from aggressive incursions from Russia, China and other nations,” Vance declared, without citing specific incidents to support the claim.
Greenland, although technically part of the Kingdom of Denmark, governs its own domestic affairs while Denmark retains control of defense and foreign policy. The autonomous island has long occupied a sensitive geopolitical position due to its location in the Arctic, its proximity to North America, and its untapped reserves of rare earth minerals and natural gas.
Vance’s Remarks Trigger Political Repercussions
The U.S. Vice President’s statements prompted swift condemnation from Danish and Greenlandic leaders, who labelled his comments disrespectful and misleading. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejected the criticisms, noting the longstanding alliance and military cooperation between the United States and Denmark.
“For many years we have stood side by side with the Americans under very difficult circumstances. Therefore the vice president’s description of Denmark is not a fair one,” Frederiksen said in a statement to Danish media.
Greenland’s newly-elected Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who leads a coalition government that favors gradual independence from Denmark, also expressed unease at the tenor of the U.S. visit. He described Vance’s presence as emblematic of a broader “lack of respect” for Greenland’s sovereignty.
During a press conference in Nuuk, Nielsen appealed for unity, stating: “At a time when we as a people are under pressure, we must stand together.” His remarks came just a day after protesters in Greenland’s capital took to the streets, waving national flags and holding signs reading “Our Land. Our Future” and “Yankees Go Home”.
Washington’s Renewed Arctic Focus
While Vance clarified that the United States has no immediate plans to expand its ground military presence in Greenland, he emphasized that additional naval assets and Arctic-capable icebreakers would be deployed to reinforce America’s position in the region. This investment, he argued, is essential to counter what he termed “extraordinary interest” from Russia and China in Arctic sea lanes, mineral rights, and strategic military passageways.
Vance also positioned the United States as a natural partner for Greenland’s future development, particularly in the face of economic stagnation and limited foreign investment. “We can make them much more secure. We could do a lot more protection. And I think they’d fare a lot better economically as well,” he said.
Despite these overtures, the Greenlandic public remains deeply skeptical of American intentions. Polls indicate overwhelming opposition to any U.S. takeover of the island. Anti-American sentiment flared again during Vance’s visit, with demonstrators donning “Make America Go Away” caps in a pointed reference to former President Trump’s earlier proposal to buy Greenland.
Trump Administration’s Arctic Ambitions Resurface
Former President Donald Trump, speaking from the White House just hours after Vance’s remarks, doubled down on the administration’s strategic view of Greenland. “We need Greenland, very importantly, for international security. We have to have Greenland,” Trump told reporters, insisting that the island’s Arctic waterways are increasingly crowded with Chinese and Russian naval traffic.
The renewed push to assert influence in Greenland reflects Trump’s long-standing interest in the island, which he attempted to purchase in 2019—a proposal Denmark flatly rejected at the time. Despite the backlash, Trump has framed the island as a linchpin of global stability, especially as the Arctic gains importance in geopolitical and climate-driven calculations.
Diplomatic Friction with NATO Ally
The public rebuke of Denmark—one of America’s oldest NATO partners—has further strained relations between the two nations. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen acknowledged Denmark’s limited investment in Greenland’s defense infrastructure but emphasized that the burden has not been solely Denmark’s to bear.
“He has a point that we haven’t done enough, but I’m a little provoked because it’s also the Americans who haven’t done enough,” Rasmussen noted, recalling that the U.S. once maintained 17 military installations in Greenland, staffed by 10,000 personnel, compared to just 200 soldiers today.
While the 1951 U.S.-Denmark agreement grants American forces open access to the Pituffik base, the scaled-back U.S. presence has coincided with rising geopolitical tensions in the Arctic. Observers have noted that both sides share responsibility for the current state of affairs.
Economic Leverage Over Military Posturing
Analysts suggest that the U.S. strategy to increase influence in Greenland is more likely to revolve around economic incentives and political pressure than direct military action. Andreas Østhagen, a senior researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, argued that while a military takeover is improbable, continued efforts to sway Greenland through diplomatic, economic, and semi-official channels are expected.
The U.S. has shown growing interest in Greenland’s vast untapped mineral resources, particularly rare earth elements critical to emerging technologies. A senior White House official recently stated that these minerals are key to powering the next generation of the U.S. economy. However, current mining operations on the island remain dominated by Australian, Canadian, and British firms, with minimal American investment to date.
Balancing Autonomy and Global Interests
Greenland’s strategic and economic significance has attracted international interest, but its leadership continues to walk a fine line between asserting autonomy and navigating global power plays. Nielsen’s coalition government, led by the pro-business Democrats, supports eventual independence from Denmark but not at the cost of becoming a pawn in U.S.-Russia-China rivalries.
Greenland’s leaders have emphasized that any future partnership—whether with the United States or other nations—must respect the island’s right to self-determination. Vance, for his part, insisted that the U.S. would honor that principle, even as he hinted that deeper ties were inevitable.
Rising Arctic Tensions and the Road Ahead
The Arctic is emerging as a focal point of great power competition. As melting ice opens new shipping routes and unlocks access to vital resources, the region’s strategic value is growing rapidly. The U.S. is seeking to assert its dominance in this domain, but its blunt approach may risk alienating longstanding allies and inflaming nationalist sentiment in sensitive regions like Greenland.
The escalating rhetoric between the United States and Denmark over Greenland reveals growing fractures in the Western alliance’s Arctic strategy. While Washington sees Greenland as a vital asset for national security and economic resilience, Copenhagen views American pressure as heavy-handed and politically tone-deaf. Greenland, meanwhile, remains caught between superpowers, striving to assert its autonomy while managing internal aspirations and external pressures.
As the Arctic’s geopolitical landscape evolves, Greenland will likely continue to be a stage for diplomatic sparring and strategic positioning. Whether the island leans closer to the U.S., maintains its historic link to Denmark, or forges its own independent path, will depend on how its leaders navigate these turbulent international currents.
