2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Kirkhill]

Statute of Westminster December 11, 1931.

April 9 1940 Germany invades Norway and Denmark

May 10 1940 Britain occupies Faroes and Iceland

Plan to occupy Greenland by Canada and Britain rejected by US on Monroe Doctrine grounds. May 1940

Danish ambassador establishes the American Greenland Commission. May 1940.

May 24 to June 2 Britain evacuates BEF from France

Britain and France withdraw from Norway June 10 1940

June 17 1940 Canada occupies Iceland for Britain

August 18 1940 Ogdensburg Agreement between US and Canada established the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. Mutual invssion plans shelved.

September 2 1940 Britain authorizes US forces on Newfoundland in exchange for destroyers.

First US troops in Newfoundland January 28 1941

April 9 1941 Danish ambassador signs "Agreement relating to the defence of Greenland" and US troops occupied Greenland.

August 17 1941 Atlantic Charter jointly declared by Britain and the US.

The weak do what they must.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Congress is coming off like Theon Greyjoy as of late, the more neutered legislative body in the western world.

A consequence of the AUMF. So much bullshit has been authorized for and done by past administrations that it has become difficult for them to draw a line without looking stupid.

 

[QV]

Why do you assume that Canada will be treated different than Puerto Rico in terms of 'sending members to Congress'. That's not occurred over the last 125+yrs. PR does NOT have this ability. Why do you assume that Canada would be different. Its not like you to 'assume' something. Its not a given at all that this would occur, please don't assume so and make it seem that all would be well in 'the rest is just part of the US'.

The suggestion from 47 was 51st state, not 17th Territory.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The suggestion from 47 was 51st state, not 17th Territory.

Please understand that would never occur.
Spend the time/effort to understand the US legislative laws. The number of seats in Congress is capped - us coming in at '51' would result in Canada having the largest number of congressional seats due to our population now being just larger than California. No Republican in their 'right' mind' would ever allow Canada and California to both control the 2 largest blocks of seats being elected into Congress. Every state in the Union would see their own number of allocated seats be proportionally reduced in order to give the largest number.

 

[MrWhyt]

The suggestion from 47 was 51st state, not 17th Territory.

The current administration is trying to end birthright citizenship, what makes you think they'll extend citizenship to all the "new" americans. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of current canadians weren't born to parents who were american citizens.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The current administration is trying to end birthright citizenship, what makes you think they'll extend citizenship to all the "new" americans. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of current canadians weren't born to parents who were american citizens.

I was

 

[QV]

The current administration is trying to end birthright citizenship, what makes you think they'll extend citizenship to all the "new" americans. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of current canadians weren't born to parents who were american citizens.

Please understand that would never occur.
Spend the time/effort to understand the US legislative laws. The number of seats in Congress is capped - us coming in at '51' would result in Canada having the largest number of congressional seats due to our population now being just larger than California. No Republican in their 'right' mind' would ever allow Canada and California to both control the 2 largest blocks of seats being elected into Congress. Every state in the Union would see their own number of allocated seats be proportionally reduced in order to give the largest number.

Both posts are hypotheticals. It is unlikely Canada would be one big state, for example. Besides, if the US wanted a territory to join as a state, they'd find the path for elected representation and citizenship. This isn't impossible. The larger hurdle is finding a willing population amongst the suggested targets for assimilation into the borg.

 

[mariomike]

I was

I married one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Again, Congress decides on state admission. Republicans might not want to admit 40 million new voters, but Democrats might. Congress isn't always in Republican hands. 40 million Canadians, of whom maybe 30% or less are mostly conservative (by Canadian standards) voters, would be an opportunity for Democrats to solidify that "permanent majority" that has been eluding them for a couple of decades.

 

[HavokFour]

Statute of Westminster December 11, 1931.

April 9 1940 Germany invades Norway and Denmark

May 10 1940 Britain occupies Faroes and Iceland

Plan to occupy Greenland by Canada and Britain rejected by US on Monroe Doctrine grounds. May 1940

Danish ambassador establishes the American Greenland Commission. May 1940.

May 24 to June 2 Britain evacuates BEF from France

Britain and France withdraw from Norway June 10 1940

June 17 1940 Canada occupies Iceland for Britain

August 18 1940 Ogdensburg Agreement between US and Canada established the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. Mutual invssion plans shelved.

September 2 1940 Britain authorizes US forces on Newfoundland in exchange for destroyers.

First US troops in Newfoundland January 28 1941

April 9 1941 Danish ambassador signs "Agreement relating to the defence of Greenland" and US troops occupied Greenland.

August 17 1941 Atlantic Charter jointly declared by Britain and the US.

The weak do what they must.

Then there's 1952.

On Wednesday, the Danish defence ministry confirmed the existence of a 1952 rule requiring soldiers to “immediately” counter-attack invading forces without awaiting orders.

The defence ministry also said that the rule “remains in force” when asked about its status by Berlingske, a centre-Right Danish newspaper.

Denmark ‘will shoot first and ask questions later’ over Greenland

Danish defence ministry confirms 1952 rule of engagement requiring soldiers to attack invading forces, following threat from US

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I wouldn't even think you'd need such a Rule of Engagement. It should go without saying.

 

[HavokFour]

I wouldn't even think you'd need such a Rule of Engagement. It should go without saying.

A result of what happened during the invasion in 1940 (see: Fort Middelgrund). 'April 9th' is a recent-ish Danish movie that's a good watch.

 

[Kirkhill]

As @HavokFour states it is a response to the events of April 9th 1940 when Germany invaded Denmark is a small country with not much land to trade for time and it shares a border with Germany. The Germans crossed the border while the Danes were waiting for orders. The first order they received was to lay down their arms.

Immediately after the invasion the Danes established a highly effective resistance.
After the war the resistance leaders, having lost confidence in both the Army and the government, demanded that the resistance be institutionalized as the Homeguard and that the Homeguard be separate from both the government and the army.
The Homeguard repoorts directly to the Danish equivalent of DND, not the equivalent of the CAF. It has its own parliamentary budget and a joint civil-military command - a civilian Commissioner responsible for raising and maintaining the Guard and a military Major-General responsible for training and employing the Guard. In wartime the Guard comes under the command of their armed forces.

Peace broke out in Denmark on May 8,1945. VE Day.
The resistance leaders met on June 11, 1945.

"The resistance movements were not interested in a people's army run by the government and the government was not interested in a people's army being independent and run solely by a military figure without parliament representation. Because of these bi-lateral demands, a simple solution to the problem was made. The Home Guard would have two chief executives: a Major General and a representative chosen by parliament."

Home Guard (Denmark) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Negotiations continued through 1948. Then came the Berlin blockade by the Russians and the US airlift. Berlin is a 5 hour drive from the Danish border. Toronto to Montreal.

The Guard was approved and authorised from April 1, 1949.

1952 rule was created in that atmosphere. Russians at the gates instead of the Germans.
To clarify things, in the absence of time to wait for orders the Danes issued the 1952 directive.
If a member of the armed forces, or the homeguard, perceives an invasion, they are authorised to start shooting,
And that applies equally to Greenland and the Faeroes.

As has been made clear, the rule still applies.

And if the givernment ordered the army to stand down it is unclear if the Homeguard would given its raison d'etre and separate reporting structure.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A short review (at reason.com) of a contemporary book about polar warfare, that makes some points about the foolishness and self-damage of Trump's Greenland policies. Some might find the book worth reading.

 

[HavokFour]

A short review (at reason.com) of a contemporary book about polar warfare, that makes some points about the foolishness and self-damage of Trump's Greenland policies. Some might find the book worth reading.

This actually just arrived on my doorstep today.

 

[GR66]

A short review (at reason.com) of a contemporary book about polar warfare, that makes some points about the foolishness and self-damage of Trump's Greenland policies. Some might find the book worth reading.

I find the reviewer's subtle implication that the fact that the Nordic militaries are better trained/equipped for Arctic warfare than the Americans somehow translates into the US having difficulty taking Greenland militarily pretty funny.

Greenland has a population of around 58,000 with only 12 communities having a population over 1,000 as per Wikipedia:

1	20,085	Nuuk	Godthåb	Sermersooq
2	5,526	Sisimiut	Holsteinsborg	Qeqqata
3	5,149	Ilulissat	Jacobshavn	Avannaata
4	3,055	Qaqortoq	Julianehåb	Kujalleq
5	2,978	Aasiaat	Egedesminde	Qeqertalik
6	2,482	Maniitsoq	Sukkertoppen	Qeqqata
7	1,830	Tasiilaq	Oscarshavn	Sermersooq
8	1,391	Uummannaq	Omenak	Avannaata
9	1,242	Narsaq	Nordprøven	Kujalleq
10	1,190	Paamiut	Frederikshåb	Sermersooq
11	1,101	Nanortalik	Bjørnsted	Kujalleq
12	1,087	Upernavik		Avannaata

[th]

Rank​

[/th][th]

Population (Jul. 2025)​

[/th][th]

Greenlandic name​

[/th][th]

Danish name​

[/th][th]

Municipality​

[/th]​

There is no significant Danish military presence there and the island is highly dependent on outside resources including food, fuel and other essentials.

There is absolutely no question that the US has the military capability to take Greenland by force without any serious difficulty. The only real question is whether they would actually be stupid enough politically to actually do it.

Meanwhile Denmark has reiterated the fact that Greenland is not for sale:

"Greenland is not for sale,” territory official says after meeting with US senators​

From CNN’s Ellis Kim, Arlette Saenz and Maureen Chowdhury
The head of representation for Greenland Jacob Isbosethsen told reporters today that there are no plans to sell the territory to the United States after he and the Danish ambassador to the US met with senators.

“Greenland is not for sale,” Isbosethsen said, speaking alongside Ambassador Jesper Møller Sørensen, the Danish ambassador to the US, as well as GOP Sen. Roger Wicker and Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.

“I think the core of what we have discussed is that we have ample opportunities to strengthen our relationship within the existing structures, and we intend to work on that,” Ambassador Møller Sørensen said, reiterating the country’s stance on the matter amid President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring the arctic territory.

Wicker, the GOP chair of the Senate Armed Services committee, said it was Denmark’s “prerogative and right” to decline talks over the sale of the semiautonomous territory. He argued the US should focus on other “great opportunities” to enhance the country’s relationship with Denmark and Greenland.

He added later, “I think there are wonderful opportunities with the critical minerals, with the challenges we have in the Arctic, and I think going forward we can answer a lot of the desires of Americans for better security in that way.”

And there is a proposal heading to the Senate to restrict the President from undertaking any military action against Greenland without congressional approval.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/06/congress/greenland-war-powers-gallego-00712605

 

[Altair]

I find the reviewer's subtle implication that the fact that the Nordic militaries are better trained/equipped for Arctic warfare than the Americans somehow translates into the US having difficulty taking Greenland militarily pretty funny.

Greenland has a population of around 58,000 with only 12 communities having a population over 1,000 as per Wikipedia:

1	20,085	Nuuk	Godthåb	Sermersooq
2	5,526	Sisimiut	Holsteinsborg	Qeqqata
3	5,149	Ilulissat	Jacobshavn	Avannaata
4	3,055	Qaqortoq	Julianehåb	Kujalleq
5	2,978	Aasiaat	Egedesminde	Qeqertalik
6	2,482	Maniitsoq	Sukkertoppen	Qeqqata
7	1,830	Tasiilaq	Oscarshavn	Sermersooq
8	1,391	Uummannaq	Omenak	Avannaata
9	1,242	Narsaq	Nordprøven	Kujalleq
10	1,190	Paamiut	Frederikshåb	Sermersooq
11	1,101	Nanortalik	Bjørnsted	Kujalleq
12	1,087	Upernavik		Avannaata

[th]
Rank

[/th][th]
Population (Jul. 2025)

[/th][th]
Greenlandic name

[/th][th]
Danish name

[/th][th]
Municipality

[/th]​

There is no significant Danish military presence there and the island is highly dependent on outside resources including food, fuel and other essentials.

There is absolutely no question that the US has the military capability to take Greenland by force without any serious difficulty. The only real question is whether they would actually be stupid enough politically to actually do it.

Meanwhile Denmark has reiterated the fact that Greenland is not for sale:

"Greenland is not for sale,” territory official says after meeting with US senators​

And there is a proposal heading to the Senate to restrict the President from undertaking any military action against Greenland without congressional approval.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/06/congress/greenland-war-powers-gallego-00712605

I think they are assuming that the EU or NATO reinforce Greenland and actually make the USA have to fight for it.

And don't get me wrong, if I wake up next week and hear that 5000 French soldiers, 1000 Finns and Swedes, 4000 Germans, plus fighters, tanks, artillery are making their way to Greenland I would sing the praises of the EU for all to hear.

But we all know that's never going to happen.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I find the reviewer's subtle implication that the fact that the Nordic militaries are better trained/equipped for Arctic warfare than the Americans somehow translates into the US having difficulty taking Greenland militarily pretty funny.

That specific case doesn't make sense.

That the US might not be as particularly prepared (which is not the same things as insufficiently prepared - they do own Alaska and have an under-ice capable navy) in general for securing the Arctic, and would be better off letting allies carry much of the load, does make sense.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The suggestion from 47 was 51st state, not 17th Territory.

And all his promises and statements have been fulfilled faithfully, to the letter, and in exquisitely correct detail & process, right?

 

[Brad Sallows]

And all his promises and statements have been fulfilled faithfully, to the letter, and in exquisitely correct detail & process, right?

All things are in doubt, but some things must be in sequence, and conditional probabilities very rapidly become extremely small when each is very small to start with. Does it make sense to worry about step 2 or 3 or 4 when step 1 (eg. invasion) must also be in doubt?