By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent polling data reveals that nearly half of Danes perceive the US as a significant threat, surpassing the perceived threat levels of North Korea and Iran. Overwhelming majorities of both Danes (78%) and Greenlanders (85%) oppose Greenland’s annexation by the United States, although Danish respondents largely believe the decision rests with Greenland. This follows heightened tensions stemming from President Trump’s repeated attempts to purchase Greenland, fueled by its strategic location and resources. The Danish Prime Minister has responded by seeking European unity in navigating altered US relations.
Read the original article here
More Danish people view the United States as a threat than they do North Korea or Iran. This isn’t about the inherent dangers of nuclear proliferation or state-sponsored terrorism, but rather a perceived immediate threat stemming from actions and pronouncements by the US administration. The proximity of a potential aggressor and the nature of the threat are crucial factors in shaping public perception.
The possibility of a US attempt to annex Greenland, specifically voiced by a former US president, has profoundly impacted Danish public opinion. This direct threat to Danish territory is perceived as far more immediate and concerning than the more abstract dangers posed by North Korea or Iran. Unlike the geographically distant threats of North Korea and Iran, the US poses a direct, tangible threat to Danish sovereignty.
The rhetoric surrounding this potential annexation, characterized as “nonsense” and “horrendous” by Danish officials, heightened the sense of threat. The perceived aggressive and entitled nature of these demands fuels the anxiety, making the US a more salient concern than countries that, while possessing weapons of mass destruction, haven’t issued such direct territorial claims. This perception contrasts sharply with the potential threats posed by North Korea and Iran, which are seen as more localized and less directly impactful on Danish national security.
The US’s history of foreign intervention and destabilization efforts further contributes to this negative perception. The argument that the US has a long track record of interfering in other nations’ affairs, leading to instability and conflict, adds to the sense of threat. This historical context, coupled with the Greenland annexation proposal, presents a narrative that frames the US not just as a distant power, but as an active and potentially hostile force.
The difference in how these threats are perceived highlights the distinction between abstract and tangible dangers. While the potential for nuclear conflict with North Korea or Iran is frightening, it remains a remote possibility for many Danes. The perceived threat from the US, however, is immediate and grounded in specific, recent events, including statements from the highest levels of US government.
Furthermore, the argument that the US, with its global military reach and power, possesses the capability to unilaterally cause harm anywhere in the world adds to its perceived threat level. This unparalleled capacity for damage, regardless of the intentions, generates a fear factor that overshadows the more localized threats of North Korea and Iran. The potential consequences of US intervention are felt to be far-reaching and more devastating for Denmark than those arising from the actions of the other two nations.
The comparison between the US and a “crazy neighbour” illustrates this point well. While a distant threat might be worrisome, a neighbor with a demonstrated history of erratic behavior and potential for violence presents a more pressing and immediate concern. This analogy accurately reflects the anxiety surrounding the US, whose power and actions are perceived as more unpredictable and potentially harmful than those of North Korea or Iran.
Adding to the concern is the US’s perceived disregard for international norms. Examples such as the alleged theft of classified documents and the forceful disregard for protocol during international meetings paint a picture of a nation acting outside established norms and without accountability. This further fuels the perception of the US as a unpredictable and therefore dangerous actor on the world stage. Such behavior erodes trust and strengthens the belief that the US is a threat.
The widespread concern among Danes isn’t merely based on isolated incidents; it stems from a broader context. The perceived threat from the US is rooted in a combination of its military might, recent political actions, historical interventions, and the perceived erratic behavior of past leadership. The comparison to other nations highlights the nuanced nature of threat perception, where the potential impact and proximity of the threat significantly shape public opinion. These factors collectively contribute to the alarming conclusion that more Danes view the US as a greater threat than North Korea or Iran. The situation underlines a growing unease among allies regarding the predictability and trustworthiness of the US’s foreign policy.