By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Danish army maintains a standing rule of engagement, established in 1952, that mandates soldiers to immediately counter-attack any invading forces, including those from the United States, without waiting for orders. This directive, confirmed by the Danish defence ministry, remains in effect. The rule’s reaffirmation comes amid President Donald Trump’s repeated expressions of interest in annexing Greenland, even suggesting the use of military force. These statements have caused significant shock and consternation in Denmark, Greenland, and the broader NATO alliance.
Read the original article here
The subject of Denmark’s unwavering stance on Greenland, particularly in light of potential threats from the United States, has become a focal point of intense discussion, and frankly, it’s pretty understandable why. The confirmation of a 1952 rule mandating Danish soldiers to immediately counter-attack any invading forces, without waiting for further orders, underscores a serious commitment to national sovereignty. The message is clear: any attempt to seize Greenland would be met with immediate and forceful resistance. This isn’t just a political statement; it’s a military doctrine.
The idea that a close ally, a fellow member of NATO, could even contemplate military action against another NATO member is, frankly, bewildering. The discussions about whether or not the US has a right to any other country are relevant. The existing rules of engagement essentially say “shoot first, ask questions later” if there’s any perceived US aggression. The fact that European allies are reportedly in urgent talks on how to respond to a potential US attack hints at the potential for a catastrophic breakdown in transatlantic relations and an effective end to the alliance as we know it.
The situation is made even more delicate by the presence of conflicting narratives. On one hand, you have the defense ministry’s unequivocal statement of readiness to defend Greenland. On the other hand, there are assurances from the US Secretary of State that there is no planned invasion. It’s tough to know what to believe at this point. The lack of faith in the Secretary of State’s statements raises serious questions about trust and credibility. The rhetoric around this has echoes of past international crises, where the potential for conflict was downplayed before escalating rapidly.
This isn’t just about Greenland; it’s about the erosion of trust between allies. The comments about “America First” and a perceived disregard for international norms are concerning. If the United States were to go down this route, it would be a major shift in the geopolitical landscape, which is why other countries feel the need to be able to defend themselves. The historical context of potential invasions is critical here. It’s a very dangerous game being played right now.
The situation also raises uncomfortable questions about the chain of command, and who would really sign off on this. Any soldier ordered to take action that violates international laws deserves respect. The sentiment in favor of Denmark’s position is clear: the right to defend oneself is a fundamental principle, and the prospect of an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation is unacceptable. The prospect of ending up in a war over Greenland isn’t popular, it’s not logical, and is not what most Americans want.
The discussions about sending troops and fortifying Greenland as a defense against China and Russia are another layer of complication. The idea of potentially igniting a conflict with a fellow NATO member is one thing, but to then use it as justification for military posturing against other powers is a dangerous strategy. Many people would like to see the U.S. call the bluff.
There is the potential for a diplomatic crisis that would make the entire affair seem like a bad joke. The idea of the US sending troops to Greenland and then claiming to be protecting the island from China and Russia is, quite frankly, absurd. Such a move would be far more likely to destabilize the region and is not something that other NATO members would tolerate. The idea that any soldier would step on Greenland in an uninvited fashion and that this would be against the rules is also very clear.
The scenario of an administration employing what some call a “negotiating style” of offering a bad first option and then backing off to something slightly less bad feels familiar. This approach, if applied to the Greenland situation, would be particularly damaging. The Danes, in this case, have every right to protect themselves, which may require force. The sentiment is that such actions would set the country back to a dark place in history.
The potential for conflict is very real. The idea of the Danes preparing for a potential fight and expanding their network is understandable, and it’s also clear that many Americans disagree with the potential for military action to take place. The US has already had a military presence there for decades.
This brings us to a possible scenario: the US expands its military presence and claims control of the island. Denmark, with the inhabited areas, continues to be recognized as being in control. NATO hangs on by a thread and everyone pretends that the US has control of the island, and the situation goes on as normal until a future administration, and maybe that’s when sanity is restored. The Trump regime wouldn’t care about killing its own citizens, and the country could start a war. In the end, it’s a terrifying prospect. The idea that “Europe won’t risk war” is also incorrect.