a famous unhinged neurosurgeon once said “Danmark, utskitet av kalk. Sverige, hugget i granit”
By Ida Auken
Ms. Auken is a member of the Danish Parliament and wrote from Copenhagen.
On Monday, the White House adviser Stephen Miller told CNN that the “formal position” of the U.S. government under President Trump is that Greenland — a part of the Kingdom of Denmark — should be part of the United States. In an interview on Wednesday with The New York Times, Mr. Trump stood by this claim. At a Thursday news conference, Vice President JD Vance said that when it comes to this issue, Europeans should take the president seriously. Believe me: In Denmark, we do. When the president of the United States says something, we listen. Not just because our countries are allies in NATO, but because America is the most militarily powerful member of the alliance.
Another thing we take seriously is security in the Arctic. Denmark has long stressed to the rest of NATO exactly what Mr. Vance said in an interview on Fox News Wednesday: “Greenland is critical, not just to our national security, but to the world’s national security.” Indeed, Mr. Vance correctly identified the real threat in the Arctic: “If, God forbid, the Russians or the Chinese” launched a nuclear missile toward the United States or Europe, “Greenland is a critical part of that missile defense.” I could not agree more. So, if Greenland is important to the entire Western world, then the entire Western world should contribute to increased security investments there. And Denmark is happy to lead this collaboration in consultation with Greenland. On this score, we have had close security cooperation with the United States for more than 70 years — an agreement between our two countries, signed in 1951, is still in place.
Mr. Vance pointed out in the same interview that he isn’t interested in rehashing the history of the alliance — like the fact that Denmark fought with America in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Fair enough. Maybe we should all just look at what is being done now instead of arguing about the past, when NATO for too long looked at the Arctic as a low-tension area, Denmark underinvested and the United States closed more than a dozen military bases in Greenland. (The U.S. military’s Pituffik Space Base remains.) There is, however, one point that must be addressed plainly. For one ally to say it should own the territory of another ally is not a negotiating position; it undermines the very principles on which our alliance rests. NATO is built on mutual respect for sovereignty, borders and democratic self-determination — including the right of the people of Greenland to decide their future. Security cooperation can and should be discussed openly and seriously. Territorial claims between allies should not. Danes will always be open to discussions on how to strengthen Arctic security. What we’re not open to is the idea that if an ally wants to annex Greenland, Danes and Greenlanders have no choice but to hand it over.
Last year, Denmark announced that it would spend nearly $14 billion to purchase F-35 jets, ships and air defense equipment. The first and second parts of the Danish Arctic defense framework call for long-range and medium-range, ground-based air and missile defense systems, surveillance radar systems, drone acquisitions and Arctic vessels. We are also establishing an Arctic unit with a dedicated first-responder capability under the Special Operations Command, a new military unit under our Joint Arctic Command, and a new Joint Arctic Command Headquarters in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital. Most important — because Mr. Vance is right that the greatest threat to Western security in the Arctic is Russian or Chinese aggression — we have invested in enhanced satellite surveillance, including space-based maritime domain awareness and Arctic communications resilience.
It’s true that not all of that military hardware has been delivered, but in many cases we are waiting on production from American companies. It would be a great contribution to American, European and Arctic security if the U.S. government helped ensure that such orders are prioritized. Yes, the real threat to America and Europe comes from Russia and China. To make all of us more secure, we need one another as allies in NATO. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are surely very happy anytime they see us arguing. It is making no one safer. On the contrary. For years, American presidents have pushed European nations to ramp up military spending. That should have happened long ago, but as the vice president said, let’s not argue about the past. Let us instead stay focused on the real threats the NATO alliance faces in the Arctic.
We are stronger together, unless we let our enemies divide us.
Yes, the real threat to America and Europe comes from Russia and China
RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE NOT THE ONES ACTIVELY DEMANDING THAT YOU HAND OVER DENMARK’S SOVEREIGN TERRITORY
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAthreats in the arctic
WHAT FUCKING THREATS? THE WHALES? THE BEARS? THE WHALES WITH BEARS ON THEM AND WHEN YOU GET TOO CLOSE THEY THROW THE BEAR ON YOU?
The Native Greenlanders want to keep minerals on the ground and like to keep their ice sheet not melted
Since when. That is the opposite of the dynamics at play.
mister president sir the danes have hit us with an nyt op ed
if he’s on his side then he’ll let Trump have greenland unopposed. which is what will likely happen if it ever did come to pass.
there’s a line in there about how NATO is built in mutual respect for sovereignty, borders, and self-determination.
funniest shit ive read all day.
almost as funny as the theatricality of pretending to be happy dog in the kennel doing tricks for kibble while simultaneously being an equal partner on a team.
*for whites** and the honkoid extended universe only
Why would China or Russia nuke Denmark? Why would you should you care about this geostrategy? Someone needs to give Dobby some clothes.
When ancient Iran invaded ancient Greece. There were some amongst the Greek bourgeois who welcomed it, because they knew it would make them rich.
These guys. They haven’t even been made any promises. And even if one was to be made, it won’t be kept.
please invade us senpai trump we need you
Ida Auken is just weird, I remember when she left the Social Liberals after Morten Østergaard left the party, which was curious because he left because he had assaulted her (And other women). Like she left the party because her abuser did.
She’s also a careerist, believes in nothing and is a tax fraud with bad opinions.
Like she left the party because her abuser did.
what
I don’t know what to tell you. That’s just literally what she did.
🥰
