cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7342854
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/19880
The Trump administration has threatened that if it can’t buy Greenland, it may take it by military force. Top aide Stephen Miller even proclaimed that “nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” But in the case of military attack, Danish troops are required to shoot first and ask questions later.
“Danish military units have a duty to defend Danish territory if it is subjected to an armed attack, including by taking immediate defensive action if required,” Tobias Roed Jensen, spokesperson for the Danish Defense Command, told The Intercept, referencing a 1952 royal decree that applies to the entire Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland.
Jensen said that the decree ensures that “Danish forces can act to defend the Danish Kingdom in situations where Danish territory or Danish military units are attacked, even if circumstances make it impossible to await further political or military instruction.”
The fact that Denmark’s small military says it is ready to defend Greenland hasn’t deterred U.S. imperial ambitions.
“One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland,” President Donald Trump said on Sunday. On Monday, Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., introduced legislation authorizing Trump “to take whatever steps necessary to annex or acquire Greenland as a territory of the United States.”
That same day, a bipartisan House coalition, led by Reps. Bill Keating, D-Mass., and Don Bacon, R-Neb., introduced the No Funds for NATO Invasion Act. The legislation would prohibit any federal funds from being made available for the invasion of any NATO member state or territory, and prohibit any officer or employee of the U.S. from taking action to execute an invasion of any NATO member state or territory.
Three sources on Capitol Hill told The Intercept that Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. — the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee — has resisted the addition of similar language to the pending defense appropriations bill, as to not derail negotiations with Republicans.
“Frankly, it’s a massive unforced error,” a congressional aide told The Intercept. “By refusing to dig in on the NATO language, Coons is giving the GOP exactly what they want without getting anything in return, and he’s doing it at the expense of our most critical alliances.”
Coons is also leading a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers on a trip to Copenhagen to meet with Danish and Greenlandic government officials this week. His office did not respond to requests for comment prior to publication.
Meanwhile, the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland will meet Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House on Wednesday, Danish Foreign Affairs Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told reporters.
The United States already has a military foothold in Greenland, the world’s largest island that is not a continent. The U.S. has a long-standing military garrison, Pituffik Space Base, which was formerly known as Thule Air Base. The War Department’s northernmost installation is key to U.S. missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance missions, including sophisticated radars and satellite command and control from Pituffik Tracking Station. Last week, defense contractor InDyne Inc. was awarded a little-noticed billion-dollar contract for missile warning, missile defense, and space domain awareness mission services at six sites, including Pituffik.
On Sunday, Trump repeated baseless claims that there are “Russian destroyers and submarines and China destroyers and submarines all over the place” in Greenland and that “Russia or China will” take over if the U.S. doesn’t.
Lopsided does not begin to capture the disparity between the armed forces of the United States and Denmark. The former has around 1.3 million active-duty personnel. The latter — just 13,100. “Their defense is two dog sleds,” Trump said of Greenland.
Danish Defense Command acknowledged that the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol is a part of the military forces. Based at Daneborg in East Greenland, it consists of about a dozen soldiers, in addition to the canines, and enforces Danish sovereignty and law enforcement authority in the world’s largest national park, which covers almost the entire northeast of Greenland.
Danish Defense forces also have modest numbers of troops stationed at bases around Greenland, including Station Nord, the northernmost military base in the world in northeast Greenland, the Royal Danish Air Force Detachment Greenland in Kangerlussuaq in the west, a facility at Mestersvig in the east, a logistics hub at Grønnedal in the southwest, and a liaison detachment at Pituffik, in the northwest. When alerted, a Danish Arctic Response Force — including aircraft and ships — stands ready to support forces in Greenland.
Spokesperson Louise Hedegaard said the Arctic Command’s sea capabilities include “inspection vessels,” while air capabilities include Bombardier Challenger maritime surveillance aircraft and Seahawk helicopters, as well as helicopters from Air Greenland. Hedegaard noted that the Arctic Command regularly deploys units from across the Danish Armed Forces and is managed by Arctic Command’s staff, logistics, and stations, which comprise approximately 150 personnel.
Ironically, late last month the State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Denmark of maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft worth an estimated$1.8 billion.
Danish Defense Command would not answer questions about how, specifically, troops would respond in the face of U.S. attack, or if new orders had been issued amid Trump administration threats. “We have no further comments on the subject,” Hedegaard told The Intercept.
“The real question is, by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland?” Miller demanded to know last week. “What is the basis of their territorial claim?”
In conjunction with a 1917 agreement between the U.S. and Denmark ceding Danish territories in the West Indies — including the islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix — to the U.S., Secretary of State Robert Lansing stated that “the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.” In 1933, when Norway tried to claim an area of East Greenland, the Permanent Court of International Justice affirmed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland.
After Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940, the Danish envoy in Washington signed the Greenland Defense Agreement of 1941, under which the U.S. obtained rights to establish military bases in Greenland. Immediately after the war, the Danish government tried unsuccessfully to terminate the agreement and rebuffed a 1946 U.S. offer of $100 million in gold for Greenland.
[
Related
The List of Countries Trump Is Threatening With War Keeps Growing](https://theintercept.com/2026/01/06/trump-wars-venezuela-colombia-cuba-iran/)
Under pressure from the U.S., the 1941 pact was replaced with a sweeping Cold War-era agreement. The Greenland Defense Agreement of 1951 provides the U.S. with “free access to and movement between the defense areas throughout Greenland, including the territorial waters, by land, sea, and air.” While it does not give the United States the right to establish facilities by fiat — Danish agreement is required — the pact allows the United States to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland, “house personnel,” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.” The pact was signed to ensure “the preservation of peace and security.”
Trump acknowledged his ability to beef up the U.S. military presence on Sunday. “We have bases on Greenland,” he told reporters. “We can put a lot of soldiers there right now if I want.”
In 1979, Greenlandic home rule came into force, and in 2009, self-rule was introduced, meaning that Denmark today recognizes Greenland as an autonomous nation. Greenlanders have the right to hold a referendum on independence, and Danish officials say the island’s 57,000 inhabitants have a right to decide their future. A 2025 survey found that 85 percent of Greenlanders do not want to join the U.S. Just 6 percent of respondents said they were in favor of an American takeover.
Trump has been clear that he is not interested in expanding U.S. access via a new agreement or pact that falls short of a takeover or annexation. Trump told the New York Times that “ownership is very important.” He continued, “That’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty.”
Denmark is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, which was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations. Trump routinely denigrates the group. “I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. The Danish military fought with NATO as part of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[
Related
The Left in Europe Confronts NATO’s Resurgence After Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine](https://theintercept.com/2022/05/05/nato-countries-russia-ukraine-left/)
The NATO alliance consists of 32 member states from North America and Europe. Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that any armed attack against one of the member states is considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked nation with armed forces, if necessary. It was, until recently, unthinkable that one member would attack another.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that a U.S. military takeover of Greenland would signal the end of the NATO alliance. “If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” he told Danish broadcaster TV2 last week.
Rubio told members of Congress in a classified briefing that Trump wants to buy Greenland from Denmark, two government officials told The Intercept. But in public comments, he would not rule out military action in Greenland.
During his second term Trump has launched attacks on Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, despite claiming to be a “peacemaker.”
Under the Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act, introduced by Fine, Trump would be authorized to “annex or otherwise acquire Greenland as a territory of the United States” and seeks to “expedite congressional approval of … statehood for Greenland.”
On Monday, Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., introduced the “Greenland Sovereignty Protection Act,” which would block federal funds from being used to facilitate “the invasion, annexation, purchase, or other form of acquisition of Greenland” by the U.S. government. The bill would also prevent a surge of troops to the island.
“Greenland is not for sale, not for conquest, and not a bargaining chip,” said Gomez. “Threatening to seize territory from an ally undermines basic international law and destabilizes one of the United States and the world’s most important alliances in NATO. This bill draws a clear line: Congress will not fund Donald Trump’s imperial fantasies.”
The post Danish Forces Are Mandated to Fire Back if U.S. Attacks Greenland appeared first on The Intercept.
From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.
Well they did, the US has meddled in Ukraine for decades, most famously in the 2014 coup and also have pushed NATO to encircle Russia. Russia didn’t start the war in a vacuum, it was the accumulation of grievances that broke the war out and the US is in the forefront of these grievances.
Shit if we’re going to make that much of a stretch I blame the Summerians for starting this whole city thing.
if you treat events of less than 2 decades old as ancient history you’re bound to be clueless of the things happening around you 👍
Libs aren’t worth arguing with, they believe whatever is convenient to them. They do not know the countless meetings Putin had with Bush, Boris Johnson, and Biden. They know nothing about NATO involvement in the maidan coupe, just vibes-based analysis or repeating propaganda from oligarch owned media.
Your argument is Russia must invade Ukraine because Ukraine would join an organization to protect them from Russia. This is the fault of the US.
That’s a nonsensical take so you get a nonsensical response
My argument is that the US did meddle and is a reason the war started, don’t put words in my mouth.
Not a single word was put in your mouth. Your arguement was taken to its conclusion
You fail to link “us meddling” to justification for a war. Or more accurately an invasion of a sovereign nation.
Russia started this war not the US.
There’s like another 100 wars you could pick that the US definitely started, so this is a very weird hill to die on.
A bunch of armed men seized parliament and established a new government which banned opposition parties. Another bunch of armed men seized local government buildings and declared independence, after which they requested Russia send troops to come to their aid. Each side claims the other was foreign-backed while theirs was a legitimate expression of popular will.
Whether Russia invaded or responded to a request for aid depends on the legitimacy of the separatists and of the central government. When France sent troops to the British colonies in America, we don’t generally consider that an invasion.
If the US meddled in overthrowing Ukraine’s previous government and picking out the new one (and there’s some evidence of that) then it calls into question whether the central government has more legitimacy than the separatists, and whether they really had the right to send tanks in to suppress the separatist rebellion.
This would be a much better argument if Russia only occupied eastern areas that expressed wanting to join Russia. Although even then there is some strong evidence that Russia planted that movement, but I’m willing to ignore that for now.
That as an argument falls apart pretty quickly when you remember they made a blitz attack for Kiev on the first day into areas not expressing a desire to separate.
Your analogy of the American revolution fits well with this. 13 British colonies had decided to succeed from Britain. France did not attack London nor did it send troops to the other British colonies in the Americas. It sent support to the ones that asked for it and nothing more.
But let’s not pretend the French did it for the American colonies. They did it to weaken Britain. Not for the people of those areas, but specifically for their own geopolitical goals.
Also let’s get back on topic. This argument agrees with me anyway. I said the USA did not start this war, and you are saying it was started by local separatists. Which back to the Revolutionary war comparison that’s spot on again
That logic relies on a big assumption that I don’t agree with, that fighting has to be contained to the specific territory in dispute. If the United States invaded Greenland and Greenland attacked NYC, despite Greenland not having any claim on NYC, that wouldn’t really be a mark against Greenland. It’s a matter of military strategy that if you can destroy enemy capabilities or force them to defend multiple fronts or knock them out entirely, you’ll probably try.
I didn’t exactly say it was started by local separatists. I said that who started it depends on which political entities you consider legitimate. If the separatists are more legitimate than the central government, you could say that the central government started it. In the same way, if you consider the American revolutionaries more legitimate than the British, then you could argue that the British started that war by infringing the American right to self-governance and popular sovereignty.
To use another comparison: the Vietnam War is generally seen as an act of US aggression, but at the time, it was claimed to be a defensive war, protecting the Republic of Vietnam from foreign supplied rebels. The reason that interpretation fell out of favor is because the Republic of Vietnam is generally regarded as having been a US puppet.
Now, I personally don’t know to what degree each side represents popular will or to what extent they are just proxies of foreign governments. But my point is that if you allow the other user’s claim that the Ukrainian government was set up through US meddling, that significantly muddles the question of who started what, whether the separatists had justification to declare independence and whether Russia had justification to respond to their requests.
That’s where you drifted, the point is that the US has been involved since the start, i am not trying to justify neither side actions, though im clearly biased towards Russia but that’s for another day. The US geopolitical games using Ukraine as a pawn directly led to Russia’s invasion, it’s really not that hard to see regardless of the side you take.
If we are going back to the main point then, being involved is not starting the war. Russia started the war when it crossed the border. All these “geopolitical games” amount to is Russia believing that Ukraine should not be an autonomous state. It disliked the country’s move to the west and invaded.
Of course there are always influences and pulls between nations. Those factors may influence the decision to start a war, but the war is started when the aggressor attacks.
I fail to see how this is different than Trump attacking Venezuela. South America has been under the United State’s sphere of influence forever. Maduro pushed back against that. It is not Maduro’s fault the US invaded. He did not start the conflict by pushing back. The US started it when they invaded a sovereign nation
You have a complete lack of reading comprehension, and are clearly twisting what was said to make a point that wasn’t even claimed.
You reek of desperation.
Yeah that didn’t clear anything up, but let’s just keep hurling insults around.