Tucker Carlson on Greenland Crisis

Tucker Carlson / Greenland Crisis / 2025-01-08

Position

“Taking Greenland would end NATO, and that would be a huge victory for the world and for the United States. Once the United States takes Greenland, which is owned by a fellow NATO member, what will be the rationale for keeping NATO? There won't be one.”

Contributing sources

[article] Tucker Carlson says US taking Greenland would end NATO, calls it "a huge victory for the world" — 2025-01-08

Position from 2025-01-08

nato-obsoleteLow

NATO is an obsolete Cold War alliance that no longer serves American interests

Their wording: “Once the United States takes Greenland, which is owned by a fellow NATO member, what will be the rationale for keeping NATO?”

Carlson holds this from the same populist nationalist framework as his Ukraine position - NATO is a Cold War relic that entangles the US in European conflicts and forces American taxpayers to subsidize European defense. Cross-conflict consistency: identical anti-alliance framing applied to Ukraine (why defend their borders?) and now Greenland (why keep the alliance?)

Also held by (2)

John Mearsheimer — Mearsheimer holds this as a structural prediction rather than an advocacy position: NATO depends on US credibility, and two simultaneous credibility-destroying actions would exceed the alliance's capacity to absorb Donald Trump — Trump's NATO skepticism predates the Ukraine war and forms part of his broader critique of alliance structures. He frames NATO as a bad deal for America rather than engaging with its strategic rationale

Incompatible with (4)

“Defending territorial integrity against aggression is essential to maintaining the rules-based international order”Med

held by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Aaron Bastani, Joe Biden, Stephen Colbert, Destiny (Steven Bonnell), Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Jimmy Kimmel, Piers Morgan, John Oliver, Jordan Peterson, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders, Richard Spencer, Jon Stewart

“The US-Israel alliance carries mutual obligations that the US should honor”Low

held by Stephen Colbert, Destiny (Steven Bonnell), Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Piers Morgan

“Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own alliances including NATO membership”Med

held by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, Stephen Colbert, Destiny (Steven Bonnell), Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Kimmel, Konstantin Kisin, Piers Morgan, John Oliver, Jordan Peterson, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders, Richard Spencer, Jon Stewart, Cenk Uygur

“NATO alliance obligations are binding commitments that the US must honor to maintain alliance credibility and collective security”

held by Joe Biden, Marco Rubio

anti-hegemonyLow

US foreign military intervention is an extension of American imperialism and hegemonic maintenance

Their wording: “Ending NATO would be a huge victory for the world - the alliance is an instrument of American imperial overreach”

Carlson's anti-hegemony framing here is selective: he opposes US hegemonic structures (NATO, foreign bases) but supports US territorial expansion into Greenland, revealing that the objection is to multilateral obligation, not to American power projection

Also held by (15)

Aaron Bastani — Bastani holds this from socialist anti-imperialist framework informed by his Iranian heritage - he sees the strikes as continuous with decades of Western intervention in the region, from the 1953 coup to the present Brian Berletic — Berletic frames all three conflicts as facets of a single US hegemonic project, not isolated events Noam Chomsky — REUSED from Iran position (chomsky-iran-imperialism). Chomsky holds this from the SAME systematic critique of US imperial power - in Iran he applied it to US nuclear hypocrisy and the 1953 coup, here he applies it to NATO expansion as an expression of US hegemonic extension into Russia's security sphere. The analytical framework is identical: US power projection creates the conditions for conflict, then the US frames itself as the defender of order it disrupted Stephen Colbert — Colbert uses the Iceland/Greenland confusion to frame the entire enterprise as imperial overreach dressed up in strategic language - the incompetence of the execution reveals the nature of the project Glenn Greenwald — Greenwald frames the intervention as proof that the permanent foreign policy establishment controls US military policy regardless of which party holds power Jackson Hinkle — Hinkle's position is rooted in categorical opposition to US military intervention anywhere, particularly against governments that resist US hegemony Jimmy Kimmel — The 'real housewife' metaphor frames the Greenland threat as the kind of petty territorial aggression that international norms exist to prevent, made dangerous only by the power asymmetry John Mearsheimer — Mearsheimer describes the operation as naked imperial hegemony - the US asserting direct control over a weaker state's resources Alexander Mercouris — Mercouris holds that American hegemonic interventions impose costs on the global economy, and that the Hormuz disruption proves the US can no longer conduct military operations without destabilizing the system it claims to protect.John Oliver — Oliver frames the power asymmetry as the core issue - the US pressuring Denmark is not a negotiation between equals but a superpower leveraging its dominance, which is the behavior the rules-based order was designed to prevent Candace Owens — Owens frames the intervention as serving a globalist/Zionist agenda rather than American national interests Hasan Piker — Piker highlights the geopolitical timing - the strike came the day after a Chinese diplomatic visit, framing it as a direct challenge to Chinese influence in Latin America Scott Ritter — Ritter frames the operation as imperial hegemonic overreach establishing a new doctrine of US hemispheric control Richard Spencer — Spencer is unusual among holders of this premise: he does not oppose American hegemony in principle but opposes this specific application of it, arguing that hegemonic resources are being spent on someone else's priorities rather than maintaining American dominance.Cenk Uygur — Uygur frames the intervention as bipartisan establishment foreign policy that persists regardless of which party or candidate is in power

Incompatible with (3)

domestic-over-foreignMed

Domestic priorities should take precedence over foreign military commitments and financial aid

Their wording: “American resources should serve American interests directly, not subsidize European defense through outdated alliance structures”

Carlson holds this from the same populist nationalist framework as his Ukraine and Iran positions - every dollar spent on alliance commitments is a dollar not spent on American priorities

Also held by (15)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — AOC connects Ukraine spending to domestic priorities not to oppose aid entirely but to demand that foreign commitments don't crowd out investments in working families Tucker Carlson — Carlson frames intervention against a socially conservative country as antithetical to his audience's values, arguing the US is replacing conservative governance with progressive-friendly alternatives Jimmy Dore — Dore's populism centers the domestic cost of foreign intervention - money spent abroad is money stolen from American workers. This resonates with his working-class audience and ties his anti-war position to economic populism Nick Fuentes — Fuentes connects the intervention to his core immigration agenda - regime change creates the conditions for mass deportation Ana Kasparian — Kasparian's political evolution from progressive to independent has sharpened her domestic-first framing. She uses the contrast between foreign military spending and domestic neglect as her primary rhetorical device, making the argument personal and tangible rather than geopolitical Candace Owens — Owens holds this from personal experience - fired from Daily Wire for questioning Israel policy, which she presents as evidence of the suppression she describes Hasan Piker — Piker frames the intervention as a distraction from domestic failures - affordability crisis ignored in favor of foreign military action Joe Rogan — Rogan holds this from a gut-level populist perspective - he sees the contrast between domestic neglect and foreign spending as self-evidently absurd, not through any ideological framework but through common-sense outrage Dave Rubin — Rubin adopts the America First spending argument wholesale, framing foreign aid as directly competing with domestic needs. The 'bankrupting ourselves' hyperbole serves his audience's populist instincts and mirrors the MAGA movement's fiscal nationalism rhetoric Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) — Benjamin frames the Ukraine commitment as a diversion of resources from domestic needs - billions spent on weapons with no endgame while Western citizens face economic hardship.Ben Shapiro — Shapiro holds this more selectively than populist nationalists - he supports some foreign commitments (Israel) but views Greenland acquisition as falling outside the category of genuine strategic necessity Donald Trump — Trump holds this premise across conflicts, consistently framing foreign military spending as competing with domestic priorities. This is the same analytical lens he applies to NATO burden-sharing and foreign aid broadly, though he suspends it selectively for Israel Cenk Uygur — Uygur explicitly frames foreign spending as competing with domestic needs - infrastructure crumbling while billions go abroad JD Vance — REUSED from Iran position (vance-iran-selective). Vance holds this from the SAME tech-libertarian realism (Thiel influence) - American resources should be invested domestically rather than in foreign military adventures. In Iran he framed this as 'no blank checks'; here he extends it to 'Europe should be defending Europe', adding a burden-shifting dimension absent from his Iran position Matt Walsh — Walsh does NOT reuse his Iran premises (civilizational-struggle, moral-obligation-israel) for Ukraine. This is the key split in the conservative movement - unconditional support for Israel based on civilizational solidarity, but conditional/skeptical support for Ukraine based on domestic priorities. The inconsistency is analytically significant: if civilizational-struggle applies to Iran (Islam vs the West), why does it not apply to Russia (authoritarian revisionism vs the democratic West)? The answer reveals that Walsh's civilizational framework is specifically Judeo-Christian, not broadly Western-democratic

Incompatible with (4)

“The US-Israel alliance carries mutual obligations that the US should honor”Low

held by Stephen Colbert, Destiny (Steven Bonnell), Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Piers Morgan

“The Iran-Israel conflict is a civilizational struggle between Western democratic values and theocratic barbarism”Low

held by Stephen Colbert, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Marco Rubio, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh

“Failure to support Israel is a moral failure, not merely a strategic disagreement”Low

held by Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Piers Morgan, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh

“Defending territorial integrity against aggression is essential to maintaining the rules-based international order”Med