Jon Stewart / Greenland Crisis / 2025-01-14

Position

“Trump says we need Greenland to stop Russia from becoming our neighbor. Somebody should show him a map of Alaska. We are already neighbors with Russia. Maybe we should form some kind of North Atlantic Treaty Organization to deal with that. We are the Jake Paul of nations - a bully picking on smaller countries because we can.”

Contributing sources

[article] Jon Stewart Mocks Trump's Claim US Needs Greenland To Stop Russia Becoming 'Neighbor' — 2025-02-04[article] Jon Stewart Rips Trump's Threats Against Panama, Denmark, Canada and Mexico — 2025-01-14

Position from 2025-01-14

rules-based-orderMed

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

Their wording: “You can't claim to be the defender of the rules-based international order while simultaneously threatening to annex territory from a democratic ally”

Stewart holds this from a consistency-and-accountability framework: the US condemns Russia for annexing Crimea while proposing to annex Greenland from Denmark - the contradiction is the point

Also held by (15)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — AOC accepts the precedent-setting argument - while she is critical of US foreign policy elsewhere, she recognizes that allowing territorial conquest by force undermines the international norms that protect smaller nationsAaron Bastani — Bastani critiques the rules-based order not by rejecting it but by arguing it is selectively applied - sovereignty is sacred when violated by US adversaries but negotiable when the US itself is the aggressorJoe Biden — Biden's career spans the Cold War, the post-Cold War liberal order, and its current erosion. He views the rules-based order not as an abstraction but as the practical framework that prevented great-power war for decades, and treats Ukraine as a defining test of whether that framework survives.Stephen Colbert — Colbert elevates the rules-based order into a civilizational frame - the stakes aren't just Ukraine but the viability of democracy as a governing model worldwideDestiny (Steven Bonnell) — Destiny holds this from liberal internationalist principles - if the norm against conquest collapses, the entire post-WWII order unravelsLindsey Graham — Graham uses DIFFERENT premises for Ukraine than for Iran. For Iran: nuclear threat, diplomacy failed, military-only-option. For Ukraine: rules-based order, sovereignty. This represents a consistency tension - the hawkish interventionism is constant but the justificatory framework shifts between conflictsNikki Haley — Haley uses DIFFERENT premise framework for Ukraine than for Iran. For Iran: nuclear-threat, proxy-threat, alliance-mutual-obligation. For Ukraine: rules-based-order, sovereignty. Same hawkish conclusion (maximum US engagement), different justification. Like Graham, this reveals that the interventionism is the constant and the premises shift to fit the conflictJimmy Kimmel — Kimmel frames the rules-based order in simple moral terms rather than strategic ones - America is supposed to stand up to bullies, and failing to do so is a betrayal of what the country claims to representPiers Morgan — Morgan frames the defense of Ukraine as a defense of the democratic order itself - attacks on Zelensky's legitimacy are attacks on the principle that democracies have the right to choose their own path.John Oliver — Oliver frames the rules-based order not as an abstract principle but as a practical warning - if this is allowed to stand, it sets a precedent that territorial conquest works, and everyone should be terrified of thatJordan Peterson — Peterson treats the rules-based order as the geopolitical equivalent of the social contract that enables individual flourishing - without it, might makes right, and the archetype of the tyrant prevailsMarco Rubio — Rubio uses the rules-based order argument instrumentally, particularly linking Ukraine to Taiwan deterrence - but with decreasing conviction as his alignment with Trump's negotiation posture has deepenedBernie Sanders — Sanders uses rules-based-order for Ukraine but NOT for Iran (where he used diplomacy-has-precedent, war-unwinnable, iran-nuclear-threat). This is an interesting inconsistency in framework - same commentator, different premise sets for different conflicts. However, rules-based-order and diplomacy-has-precedent are not incompatible, just different emphasis: for Ukraine the violation is clear-cut territorial aggression; for Iran the situation was more ambiguous and diplomacy had a proven track record to point toRichard Spencer — Spencer is unusual among figures associated with the dissident right: he explicitly supports NATO and the American-led Western order, viewing them as civilizational infrastructure rather than globalist overreach.Jon Stewart — Stewart accepts the rules-based order argument but refuses to let it function as a shield against scrutiny. The principle is valid but it doesn't exempt the policy from oversight
Incompatible with (7)
“The Ukraine conflict is a US proxy war against Russia using Ukrainian lives”Low

held by Brian Berletic, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Jackson Hinkle, Alexander Mercouris, Neema Parvini, Hasan Piker, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Scott Ritter

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

held by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, Nick Fuentes, Ana Kasparian, Candace Owens, Hasan Piker, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump, Cenk Uygur, JD Vance, Matt Walsh

“US vital national interests are not directly threatened by foreign military conflicts that do not pose a direct threat to American territory or core economic infrastructure”Med

held by Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dore, Nick Fuentes, Tulsi Gabbard, Ana Kasparian, Douglas Macgregor, John Mearsheimer, Elon Musk, Trita Parsi, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), Richard Spencer, Donald Trump, Cenk Uygur, JD Vance, Matt Walsh

“US control of Greenland is a strategic necessity for Arctic security and rare earth mineral access”Low

held by Marco Rubio, Donald Trump

“International relations are governed by power dynamics between great powers, not by international law or institutional frameworks”Med

held by John Mearsheimer, Neema Parvini, Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh

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

held by Tucker Carlson, John Mearsheimer, Donald Trump

“Great powers have the right to expand territory when strategic interests demand it”Low

held by John Mearsheimer, Marco Rubio, Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump

existing-agreements-sufficientHigh

Existing defense agreements and alliance structures already address the strategic interests that territorial expansion claims to serve

Their wording: “Maybe we should form some kind of North Atlantic Treaty Organization - oh wait, we already did that, and it already covers Greenland”

Stewart uses sarcasm to expose that the strategic rationale for acquisition is undermined by the existence of the very alliance the acquisition would destroy - NATO already provides the Arctic security framework Trump claims to need

Also held by (2)
Joe Biden — Biden treats the existing defense infrastructure in Greenland as evidence that territorial acquisition is unnecessary. The 1951 defense agreement, the 2023 expanded cooperation agreement, and NATO coverage provide the military access, early warning capability, and strategic positioning that acquisition proponents claim to seek.Ben Shapiro — Shapiro holds this from a rationalist cost-benefit framework: if the stated goal is military access and rare earth security, and existing agreements already provide that, the acquisition is a solution in search of a problem
Incompatible with (2)
“US control of Greenland is a strategic necessity for Arctic security and rare earth mineral access”Low

held by Marco Rubio, Donald Trump

“Great powers have the right to expand territory when strategic interests demand it”Low

held by John Mearsheimer, Marco Rubio, Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump

greenland-crisis-manufactured

There is no genuine Arctic security crisis requiring US territorial acquisition of Greenland - the threat rationale is manufactured or inflated to justify the demand

Their wording: “The claim that we need Greenland to stop Russia becoming our neighbor ignores that Alaska already borders Russia - the threat rationale is manufactured to justify the acquisition”

Stewart identifies the factual absurdity in the stated justification: the US has shared an Arctic border with Russia since the Alaska Purchase in 1867, making the 'Russia as neighbor' framing demonstrably false

Also held by (3)
Jimmy Dore — Dore rejects the framing that Chinese or Russian Arctic activity creates a genuine security crisis requiring territorial acquisition, viewing it as threat inflation to justify expansionJimmy Kimmel — Kimmel's comedy framing implicitly rejects the strategic rationale entirely, treating the whole enterprise as driven by Trump's ego rather than any genuine security calculationCandace Owens — Owens treats the public rationale (Arctic security, rare earth minerals) as a cover story for the actual motivation (expanding and maintaining military positioning), consistent with her broader distrust of government stated objectives
Incompatible with (1)
“US control of Greenland is a strategic necessity for Arctic security and rare earth mineral access”Low

held by Marco Rubio, Donald Trump