Denmark, once NATO’s troublesome family member, notorious for its ”footnote policy” during the Cold War, underwent a dramatic transformation. In the 1980s, under Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Denmark’s opposition to US nuclear strategy led to its government obstructing NATO decisions through meticulous footnotes, creating friction within the alliance. This stance, driven by disapproval of Reagan’s ”peace through strength” approach, ultimately proved detrimental to Denmark’s international relations, particularly with the United States. Recognizing this, subsequent Danish governments embarked on a course correction, eager to shed the image of obstructionism. They embraced an activist approach to foreign policy, aligning closely with US interests. This marked a profound shift from hesitant participant to staunch ally, perhaps even the most loyal within NATO.
This newfound loyalty manifested most vividly in the aftermath of 9/11. While lacking a substantial military apparatus beyond its navy, Denmark readily deployed its elite special forces to Afghanistan, joining the US and UK in combat operations, going beyond the peacekeeping roles adopted by other Nordic nations like Sweden, Norway, and Finland. This commitment was reiterated a few years later in Iraq, where Denmark swiftly pledged support despite widespread skepticism amongst other NATO allies. Throughout the 2000s, Denmark actively participated in five military conflicts, the most enduring being the Afghanistan war. This involvement came at a significant cost, with 44 Danish soldiers losing their lives and hundreds returning home with physical and psychological scars.
Ironically, these sacrifices, borne out of a desire to mend relations with the US, seemingly hold little weight in the era of Donald Trump. The former US President’s worldview, characterized by a focus on the immediate present and a disregard for historical context or future implications, leaves little room for acknowledging or appreciating Denmark’s past contributions. In Trump’s transactional mindset, Denmark’s commitment to US-led initiatives might even be viewed as participation in ultimately unsuccessful ventures, branding them as “losers” in conflicts like Afghanistan. This short-term perspective, coupled with a self-serving ethos, is the lens through which Trump views international relations. It explains his abrupt and seemingly whimsical pronouncements, like expressing interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark, even hinting at coercive measures, including tariffs or military action.
This ’moi, maintenant, maximum’ (me, now, maximum) mentality, as some diplomats describe it, is reminiscent of gangland tactics rather than the norms of international diplomacy between democratic allies. It operates on the principle of immediate gratification and the acquisition of assets by any means necessary, reminiscent of a shakedown rather than a negotiation between sovereign nations. This approach disregards established international norms and alliances, mirroring the disruptive tactics employed by figures like Vladimir Putin, who seeks to destabilize democracies through disinformation campaigns and support for extremist groups, aiming to divide and conquer.
Trump’s modus operandi, amplified by his association with Elon Musk, the world’s richest individual and owner of the influential social media platform X (formerly Twitter), presents a new and potent threat. Musk leverages his platform to disseminate propaganda and sow discord, seemingly emboldened by Trump’s tacit approval. Musk’s attacks are directed not only against European governments he deems undesirable, advocating for their replacement with far-right alternatives like Germany’s AfD, but also against individual leaders, labeling them as “tyrants” and calling for their imprisonment. This targeted harassment of democratic leaders, while conspicuously silent on actual authoritarian regimes like China, reflects Musk’s own business interests and dependencies within the Chinese market.
This combination of immense wealth, a powerful social media platform, and the backing of a former US President creates a formidable force that undermines democratic processes and international stability. The year 2025 has barely begun, yet it is already evident that we are entering an era where might makes right. Smaller nations like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are particularly vulnerable in this environment where international law is weakened and partnerships are defined by raw power. More than ever, close Nordic cooperation and a strong European Union, anchored in democratic principles and the rule of law, are essential for their survival and prosperity. The targeting of Denmark serves as a stark warning; today it is Greenland, tomorrow it could be Sweden’s right to choose its own defense systems. A united and resolute European front is crucial to withstand these emerging threats.
