Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Greenland — an autonomous Danish territory with vast mineral wealth, a strategic Arctic location, and long U.S. military ties — has become a geopolitical flashpoint.
After the recent operation in Venezuela, and while use of force and full annexation have been ruled out, President Trump wants sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights is a necessity for security against China and Russia, and other national interests, such as access to emerging shipping routes. However, Danish and Greenlandic leaders have firmly rejected the idea, emphasizing Greenland’s right to self-determination. Some leaders also worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S., destabilize Arctic governance, and weaken an already fragile world order in the years to come.
Within these evolving circumstances, we debate the question: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory in Greenland a Strategic Necessity?
This debate was recorded in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations. It was recorded on February 3, 2026, at 6 PM.
Arguing Yes:
Alexander B. Gray, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council
Michael Pillsbury, Senior Advisor for the President’s Office at The Heritage Foundation
Arguing No:
Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washington Post
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.
#Greenland #USA #Denmark
===================================
Subscribe on Substack: opentodebate.substack.com/
Official site: opentodebate.org/
X: twitter.com/OpentoDebateOrg
Facebook: facebook.com/BeOpentoDebate/
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/opentodebate/
Instagram: instagram.com/opentodebateorg/
TikTok: tiktok.com/@opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Apple Podcasts: tinyurl.com/bdzmz5xt
Open to Debate Spotify Podcasts: tinyurl.com/22tuxu7h
===================================
00:00:00 — Introduction: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory in Greenland A Strategic Necessity?
00:04:33 — Opening Statement: Alexander B. Gray (Yes, Strategic Necessity)
00:08:37 — Opening Statement: Max Boot (No, Not a Necessity)
00:13:03 — Opening Statement: Michael Pillsbury (Yes, Strategic Necessity)
00:17:44 — Opening Statement: Kori Schake (No, Not a Necessity)
00:22:26 — Moderator Summary
00:23:52 — Is the U.S. Acting in Bad Faith Toward Denmark?
00:25:54 — Would Greenland’s Independence Change the Security Equation?
00:28:49 — Does Pressuring Greenland Undermine U.S. Alliances?
00:32:36 — Is Trump’s Approach Negotiation or Antagonism?
00:34:02 — What Does Strategic Necessity Justify?
00:36:02 — Minerals, Resources, and Greenland’s Economic Future
00:37:19 — Hypothetical Independence vs. Today’s NATO Crisis
00:40:42 — Greenland, Taiwan, and the Credibility of U.S. Power
00:43:13 — Is Blowing Up NATO Worth It?
00:47:04 — Should the U.S. Talk Directly to Greenlanders?
00:49:32 — Does This Signal a Harsher Turn Toward Europe?
00:50:55 — Is This a Strategic Distraction or an Overstretch?
00:53:31 — What Does “Limited Control” Really Mean?
00:56:10 — Closing Statement: Alexander B. Gray
00:58:25 — Closing Statement: Max Boot
01:00:43 — Closing Statement: Michael Pillsbury
01:02:58 — Closing Statement: Kori Schake
01:05:04 — Final Thoughts
Greenland — an autonomous Danish territory with vast mineral wealth, a strategic Arctic location, and long U.S. military ties — has become a geopolitical flashpoint.
After the recent operation in Venezuela, and while use of force and full annexation have been ruled out, President Trump wants sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights is a necessity for security against China and Russia, and other national interests, such as access to emerging shipping routes. However, Danish and Greenlandic leaders have firmly rejected the idea, emphasizing Greenland’s right to self-determination. Some leaders also worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S., destabilize Arctic governance, and weaken an already fragile world order in the years to come.
Within these evolving circumstances, we debate the question: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory in Greenland a Strategic Necessity?
This debate was recorded in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations. It was recorded on February 3, 2026, at 6 PM.
Arguing Yes:
Alexander B. Gray, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council
Michael Pillsbury, Senior Advisor for the President’s Office at The Heritage Foundation
Arguing No:
Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washington Post
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Visit our Substack to watch more insightful debates and subscribe to our newsletter.
#Greenland #USA #Denmark
===================================
Subscribe on Substack: opentodebate.substack.com/
Official site: opentodebate.org/
X: twitter.com/OpentoDebateOrg
Facebook: facebook.com/BeOpentoDebate/
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/opentodebate/
Instagram: instagram.com/opentodebateorg/
TikTok: tiktok.com/@opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Apple Podcasts: tinyurl.com/bdzmz5xt
Open to Debate Spotify Podcasts: tinyurl.com/22tuxu7h
===================================
00:00:00 — Introduction: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory in Greenland A Strategic Necessity?
00:04:33 — Opening Statement: Alexander B. Gray (Yes, Strategic Necessity)
00:08:37 — Opening Statement: Max Boot (No, Not a Necessity)
00:13:03 — Opening Statement: Michael Pillsbury (Yes, Strategic Necessity)
00:17:44 — Opening Statement: Kori Schake (No, Not a Necessity)
00:22:26 — Moderator Summary
00:23:52 — Is the U.S. Acting in Bad Faith Toward Denmark?
00:25:54 — Would Greenland’s Independence Change the Security Equation?
00:28:49 — Does Pressuring Greenland Undermine U.S. Alliances?
00:32:36 — Is Trump’s Approach Negotiation or Antagonism?
00:34:02 — What Does Strategic Necessity Justify?
00:36:02 — Minerals, Resources, and Greenland’s Economic Future
00:37:19 — Hypothetical Independence vs. Today’s NATO Crisis
00:40:42 — Greenland, Taiwan, and the Credibility of U.S. Power
00:43:13 — Is Blowing Up NATO Worth It?
00:47:04 — Should the U.S. Talk Directly to Greenlanders?
00:49:32 — Does This Signal a Harsher Turn Toward Europe?
00:50:55 — Is This a Strategic Distraction or an Overstretch?
00:53:31 — What Does “Limited Control” Really Mean?
00:56:10 — Closing Statement: Alexander B. Gray
00:58:25 — Closing Statement: Max Boot
01:00:43 — Closing Statement: Michael Pillsbury
01:02:58 — Closing Statement: Kori Schake
01:05:04 — Final Thoughts
