Denmark’s Dilemma: Is The Country Paying Price For A Lesson Long Forgotten? | Explained | World News

Denmark faces a geopolitical predicament that few could have imagined: the potential military threat from its ally and NATO member, the United States, on the Arctic island of Greenland. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested taking control of Greenland, which is officially Danish territory, raising concerns about the limits of NATO’s protection. Historically, the alliance was formed to protect its members from external enemies, but the alliance’s charter is silent on conflicts between the allies themselves.

This is not entirely new territory for Denmark. Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis drew a parallel to X, noting: “NATO is committed to defending member states from non-member belligerent states, but from each other, not from other member states, not from Turkey or now… the United States! So Denmark, welcome to the club, and remember that your governments also argue that it is not NATO’s duty to defend any member state against another NATO member state.”

Lessons from Cyprus, 1974

This situation is reminiscent of the 1974 Cyprus crisis, when Greece and Türkiye, both NATO members, clashed. Cyprus gained independence from Britain in 1960, consisting mostly of Greek Cypriots and a Turkish minority. Greece, Türkiye and England had the right to intervene if necessary.

Tensions escalated when a coup backed by Greece’s military rulers overthrew President Makarios, aiming to unify with Greece. Türkiye saw this as a threat to Turkish Cypriots and invaded on July 20, 1974. The first invasion was only partially successful; A second in August secured about 36% of the island, which remains under Turkish control. Thousands died.

Greece appealed to NATO for intervention, but the alliance was left out. As Varoufakis emphasized, “NATO charter does not cover insider attacks. Therefore, in Cyprus, NATO remained outside and left this job to Greece and Türkiye.” Greece withdrew as military command of NATO from 1974 to 1980 due to frustration with the alliance’s failure to protect it from another member.

Denmark is in a similar situation

Today Denmark faces a similar dilemma. If the United States acts in line with its Greenland ambitions, NATO’s Article 5, designed for external attacks, will provide no guarantee of protection. Unlike Greece in 1974, Denmark is far behind militarily; While the US’s defense budget exceeds $1 trillion, Denmark’s is only $10 billion by 2025.

European countries showed symbolic support. For example, Britain and Norway sent one and two soldiers, respectively, on reconnaissance missions. But the gesture angered Trump, who retaliated with a 10% tariff on countries supporting Denmark.

Greenland itself has significant autonomy, and its largely Inuit population wants a say in its future, but Denmark retains control over defense and foreign policy. European Union leaders have supported Denmark diplomatically, but NATO remains constrained by its own rules. Article 4 allows members to discuss potential threats, while Article 5 only protects against attacks from outside the alliance.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez warned that the US move against Greenland could be the “death knell” for NATO. For Denmark, this incident is a reminder of the structural weakness of the alliance; When friends become enemies, even the strongest military alliance can fall by the wayside.

The Greenland dispute underscores a simple and stark truth: NATO was founded to protect against external threats, but it can offer little recourse when its most powerful member becomes a threat.