There are moments in history that are difficult to forget, which change the course of events. Danes have experienced several such moments in the last few months, but to me, the most defining one occurred a few weeks ago, when Vice President JD Vance said Denmark is “not being a good ally” to the United States.
Danes were stunned and stung. Our country has been nothing less than a stalwart ally of America. Many of us felt as if we were losing a longtime friend — almost as if a brother were abandoning us: The United States has been Denmark’s closest ally for 80 years. We have followed American presidents into wars that many Danes felt were not ours to fight.
Since the end of World War II, the United States and Denmark have had a strong partnership — both countries are founding members of NATO. Since 1949, NATO’s Article 5 principle of collective defense has been at the heart of this partnership, creating a safer world for us all. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was on Sept. 12, 2001. Less than 24 hours after the terrorist attack on the United States, its European and Canadian allies stood up to assist Americans.
Thousands of Danish troops went on to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 11. More than 50 of them died. That is not a small number, especially in a country of only six million people. Denmark lost roughly as many service members per capita in Afghanistan as the United States did.
In 2011, Danish pilots flew missions in Libya alongside U.S. and other NATO forces. When America has called, Denmark has stepped up.
Anger and grief prevail when we think about what to say now to the Danish parents who lost their children in these wars. How are those who have sacrificed what is most dear to them supposed to interpret the notion that Denmark is not a good ally?
It hasn’t always been easy to explain to the Danish people why they should be involved in American-led wars, but overall, we understand the importance of alliances and cherish our partnership with the United States.
I understand that changes in American political leadership bring changes in policy — that is the right of any administration. If President Trump has concerns about security in the Arctic, of course, our countries should work together to address them. But that is not the same as suggesting that Denmark is failing to uphold its commitments in Greenland or anywhere else. And it is not a pretext for America acquiring Greenland, as the president has suggested.
It is also true that Denmark and other European countries have long lived under the protection of the U.S. military, in the sense that the United States has invested more in its own defense than the rest of us. And it is true that it took us too long to do what several American presidents had urged us to do: spend more on our own security.
It took a war on our continent to make us realize that peace can never be taken for granted. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Denmark has been the second-largest donor of weapons and support to Ukraine as a share of G.D.P. and among the largest donors in total. Today, Denmark invests over 2 percent of our G.D.P. in defense — above the NATO guideline — and in both 2025 and 2026, we will spend more than 3 percent.
As our foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, stated in March: “We will shoulder our share of the responsibility. No one should doubt that.”
In Greenland, Denmark has invested billions to help provide government services. It is unfair to say, as the vice president did last month, that Danes “have underinvested in the people of Greenland.”
He may have a point when he said that we have underinvested in Greenland’s security. But in this regard, we do not bear the responsibility alone. When it comes to the military defense of the Arctic, NATO acknowledges that it is a shared responsibility.
And the United States, too, plays a special role in this. In the 1951 Greenland defense agreement between the United States and Denmark, the United States has had almost unlimited access to invest in defense facilities in Greenland. In this agreement, the governments of the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark recognize “their respective and joint responsibilities in Greenland, in accordance with NATO plans.”
We all could have done better. In the post-World War II era, there were over a dozen American military installations in Greenland. Today, only one American base remains, with around 150 permanent personnel — the Pituffik Space Base, which Mr. Vance recently visited. The Danish military presence is not robust either. But as Mr. Rasmussen said last month in a post on X: “We respect that the United States needs a greater military presence in Greenland” and “we, Denmark and Greenland, are very much open to discussing this.” Denmark has just decided to increase spending on Arctic security by more than $2 billion. America is welcome to increase its investment, too. We can even do it together.
Danes hope that our partnership with Americans can continue. We want to maintain this friendship, but we will stand firm on our principles. I will leave the final word to our prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, who made a powerful statement during her visit to Greenland on April 3: “The U.S. is a big country, and Denmark is a small one. We have looked up to you, and you have inspired us.”
But, she added: “When you demand to take over a part of the Kingdom of Denmark’s territory — when we are met by pressure and by threats from our closest ally — what are we to believe in about the country that we have admired for so many years? The country that, if any, has stood up for others’ freedom. You know us, you know what we stand for, and you know that we don’t give in.”
