JD Vance’s Greenland Visit: A Power Play in Disguise 

by Craig Dee

Vice President JD Vance’s recent trip to Greenland, accompanied by his family, was an unwelcome and unnecessary display of U.S. dominance. Neither the government of Greenland nor Denmark extended an invitation—his only reception came from soldiers stationed at the U.S. military base, who had no choice in the matter.

The media coverage centered on his speech at the base (see video below), where Vance repeatedly invoked terms like “military security” and “national security” at least half a dozen times. But where exactly is the threat? This rhetoric reeks of paranoia rather than peacekeeping. Imagine if Russia made the same argument. What if Russia expressed interest in purchasing Greenland or establishing a military base there, just as the U.S. already has? Americans would be outraged. In fact, if any other country attempted such a move, the U.S. would likely frame it as a global takeover attempt.

The Myth of an “Unsafe” Arctic

Vance’s assertion that the U.S. must make the Arctic “safe” is baseless. Greenland has always been safe. The real danger isn’t an external threat but the possibility of U.S. militarization turning Greenland into a target. If missiles were stationed there, it would immediately become a high-risk zone—Greenlanders understand this. In the event of a U.S.-Russia conflict, Greenland’s military base would inevitably become a strategic bombing target.

Adding insult to injury, Vance had the audacity to claim that “Denmark is not doing a very good job.” For a high-ranking U.S. official to criticize the governance of a close ally is both undiplomatic and misleading. The reality is that Denmark has successfully kept Greenland out of international conflicts. The region remains stable, its people employed, and its resources managed without external interference.

The Real Agenda: Resource Exploitation

Beyond military posturing, Vance’s visit also revived the Trump Administration’s ambitions to exploit Greenland’s mineral wealth. He and Trump have stated their intent to develop the island’s resources—but that decision belongs to the people of Greenland and Denmark, not Washington.

If valuable minerals were readily available, Denmark or other nations would have already begun extraction. Historically, U.S. corporations have struck deals with foreign governments for resource development without attempting to annex their land. Why, then, hasn’t the U.S. simply proposed a mining partnership with Greenland instead of pushing for control?

One common argument is that “Greenland or Denmark doesn’t have the money to develop the minerals.” But history proves otherwise. If valuable resources exist, foreign companies would readily invest, securing a share of the profits rather than outright ownership of the land. This has been the standard approach in global resource extraction for centuries. So why does the U.S. insist on taking a different approach with Greenland?

A Thinly Veiled Power Grab

Vance’s visit was nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to expand U.S. control—militarily and economically. Greenland doesn’t need American intervention to be safe or prosperous. The real question is: why does the U.S. believe it has the right to dictate Greenland’s future?

Greenland, Canada, and the Antarctic: America’s Misguided Obsession with Expansion

This is a fictional story, but one rooted in reality. Remember the old American sitcom The Beverly Hillbillies? Jed Clampett struck oil on his land, partnered with an oil company, became a millionaire, and moved to Beverly Hills. That’s how landowners without resources develop their land—they don’t sell it outright but work with companies already in the industry.

So why is the U.S. dangling the idea of buying Greenland if all they truly want is access to its minerals?

Why Greenland? Why Not Canada?

If the U.S. is genuinely interested in mineral resources, why focus on Greenland? Canada, Greenland’s massive neighbor to the west, has plenty of land rich in natural resources. Take a look at a map—Canada’s northern territories are filled with large, mineral-rich islands. If mining is the goal, why not strike a deal with Canada instead? Canadian corporations already develop their own resources, and if private landowners control certain areas, mining companies can negotiate directly with them. If the government owns the land, those same companies could negotiate extraction rights.

So why isn’t the U.S. pushing for Canadian resources in the same way? The answer is simple: this isn’t just about minerals—it’s about control.

What About Antarctica?

If the U.S. is in such desperate need of rare-earth minerals and oil, why not turn to Antarctica? In fact, mining there would be easier for several reasons:

1. No single country has claimed Antarctica.
2. The U.S. (and several other nations) already have a presence there.
3. Antarctica’s landmass is far larger than Greenland.
4. Admiral Richard Byrd once publicly stated that Antarctica holds vast amounts of untapped minerals and oil.
5. Unlike Greenland, pursuing mineral extraction in Antarctica wouldn’t provoke geopolitical tensions.

There is, of course, the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which prohibits mineral development. However, treaties can be renegotiated. If multiple nations agreed to open Antarctica to controlled resource extraction, it could provide economic benefits without stepping on the toes of sovereign nations like Greenland and Denmark.

Yet, the U.S. government isn’t pushing for that. Why? Again, the issue isn’t minerals—it’s strategic dominance.

Is There Really a Shortage?

If rare-earth minerals and oil were truly running out, why haven’t nations aggressively pursued untapped resources in Canada, Greenland, or Antarctica? The answer is simple: supply and demand.

Oil-rich nations in the Middle East, for example, know exactly how much oil they have. Yet they don’t extract it all at once—they drill only as needed to maintain stable prices. The same principle applies to minerals. Governments and corporations are well aware of their resource reserves, but many sites remain undeveloped simply because demand is being met elsewhere.

Will the U.S. Develop Greenland’s Minerals?

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Greenland does have vast mineral reserves. If the U.S. were to gain control over Greenland, would it actually develop those resources? The answer is likely no, for two primary reasons:

1. As mentioned earlier, the U.S. already has access to enough minerals to meet its needs.
2. Extracting minerals from Greenland would be extraordinarily expensive and logistically challenging.

Mining in remote, frozen landscapes comes with significant obstacles. Everything—equipment, fuel, food, and personnel—would have to be flown in. Heavy machinery would need to be designed to withstand extreme cold. Airfields would need to be built, and helicopters would have to transport workers to remote mountain sites. Workers would demand high salaries, as they do in Alaska’s oil fields.

These challenges would make mining in Greenland financially impractical. Instead, the idea of mineral development is likely just a pretext—a convenient excuse to justify U.S. expansion into Greenland under the guise of economic opportunity.

The Security Argument: Another Convenient Excuse

The U.S. already has a military base in Greenland. If security were truly the concern, why would the U.S. need to own the country? The reality is that America has over 800 military bases around the world—one in Greenland is more than enough to maintain security.

But Vance’s rhetoric, along with Trump’s past comments about Greenland, signals something far more troubling: an attempt to militarize the Arctic under the pretense of national security. This aggressive posture sends a clear and hostile message to Russia.

If Russia suddenly expressed interest in acquiring territory near the U.S., Washington would undoubtedly interpret it as a provocation. But when the U.S. does the same thing, it’s framed as a strategic necessity. The hypocrisy is obvious.

A Manufactured Crisis?

If the U.S. truly wanted peace with Russia, it wouldn’t be posturing over Greenland or expanding its military presence near Russian borders. It wouldn’t be fueling tensions in Ukraine. Instead, it would be engaging in genuine diplomacy.

But rather than working toward stability, U.S. leaders seem intent on manufacturing a crisis—whether to justify military expansion, consolidate economic control, or use Greenland as a bargaining chip in future negotiations with Russia.

The Real Motivation: Greed and Global Dominance

At the end of the day, the push for Greenland isn’t about resources. It’s about control. It’s about expanding U.S. influence under the illusion of economic development and security.

Vance’s visit, Trump’s past statements, and the broader U.S. strategy in the Arctic all point to the same conclusion: this isn’t about helping Greenlanders or addressing a mineral shortage. It’s about power.

And as history has shown, nations that overextend themselves in pursuit of global dominance eventually face consequences. As the saying goes, pride comes before the fall, as we read in the book of Revelation.

.