Mark Peters, a brave Danish soldier who lost his lower legs while defending the United States, serves as a powerful symbol of the deep bond between Denmark and the U.S. This tragic story was shared in a moving piece by Todd Johnson, published in War Room, the Army War College journal.
After the events of 9/11, Denmark answered the call and sent thousands of soldiers to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Tragically, it lost more soldiers, relative to its population, in Afghanistan than any other NATO nation besides the United States. Denmark’s sacrifice in these conflicts exemplifies the profound solidarity that transcends borders.
The notion that “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,” famously attributed to Henry Kissinger, underscores a cold, realpolitik view of international relations. While there is truth in this, especially in the context of shifting political alliances, it overlooks the critical long-term value of steadfast alliances. Take, for example, the historic relationship between France and England. After centuries of rivalry and war, these two nations have maintained a close alliance since World War I, continuing through World War II and beyond, even standing together as NATO allies during the Cold War.
Though we may not have “permanent” friendships, the U.S. has a permanent interest in nurturing alliances with like-minded democratic nations. Our strength and security lie not only in our own military and economic might but also in the collective power of these partnerships. If we sever ties with allies, we weaken ourselves and make ourselves vulnerable.
The Trump administration is currently risking a critical diplomatic misstep that could alter the course of U.S. foreign policy. In a series of statements and actions, it has attempted to pressure Denmark into surrendering control of Greenland, a semiautonomous territory. This move could jeopardize the longstanding partnership between Denmark and the U.S., with consequences that may resonate for decades.
In early January, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that acquiring Greenland was a top national security priority for the United States. President Trump further emphasized that if the U.S. couldn’t obtain Greenland “the easy way,” it would resort to the “hard way.” Trump’s rhetoric suggests that Greenland is of such strategic importance to U.S. security that, if Denmark is unwilling to part with it, the U.S. might take action regardless.
The administration’s actions reflect a troubling shift towards coercion and away from the collaborative approach that has historically defined American power. Denmark, for its part, has made it clear that it will not give in to U.S. demands. While the U.S. insists that Greenland’s resources and strategic location are crucial, Denmark points to the historical agreements that already provide U.S. military access to Greenland for defense purposes. These arrangements, dating back to 1951, grant the U.S. significant operational rights on Greenland’s soil.
Rather than threatening an ally who has stood by the U.S. through thick and thin, the Trump administration should recognize that such coercive tactics are not only morally wrong but strategically short-sighted. The U.S. has benefited immeasurably from its alliances over the years, and undermining these relationships for short-term gain will make the country weaker, not stronger.
Denmark, a steadfast member of NATO and an important partner in both global security and humanitarian efforts, has made immense sacrifices alongside the U.S. in places like Afghanistan. It has fought not only within NATO frameworks but also in non-NATO operations such as the Iraq War. More recently, Denmark’s contribution to the U.S.-led coalition against Houthi rebels in the Red Sea underscores its ongoing commitment to international security.
The idea of pressuring Denmark into relinquishing Greenland is akin to taking advantage of a long-time friend. Denmark’s sacrifice should be honored, not threatened. Furthermore, any effort to weaken the U.S.-Denmark alliance will likely prove counterproductive. It is in America’s best interest to maintain strong, voluntary alliances, as history has repeatedly shown that cooperation, rather than coercion, leads to stronger, more resilient nations.
If the U.S. were to follow through on its threats, it would damage its reputation among allies and erode the very foundation of international alliances. The push to acquire Greenland by force is an example of the type of mercenary mentality that has no place in modern diplomacy. Instead of creating division, the U.S. should build on the decades of mutual respect that have defined its relationship with Denmark and other NATO allies.
In the end, it’s essential to understand that the strength of alliances doesn’t lie in domination or coercion, but in cooperation, trust, and mutual respect. The U.S. should never lose sight of this principle, as doing so would weaken its global standing and diminish its moral authority.
