Danish Defense Ministry: We’ll “Shoot First and Ask Questions Later” If US Invades Greenland
A service member from the Danish military via NARA & DVIDS Public Domain Archive –
Denmark’s political and military leadership has revived a Cold War–era doctrine, confirming this week that Danish forces are authorized to open fire immediately if foreign troops land on Danish territory—without waiting for political or military approval.
The Defense Ministry confirmed to Berlingske, a center-right Danish newspaper, that a 1952 directive remains in force. The order requires Danish soldiers to counterattack any invading force at once, even in the absence of a formal declaration of war. In practical terms, it establishes a shoot-first policy designed for moments of sudden crisis.
The timing of the announcement is significant. Relations between Copenhagen and Washington have grown increasingly tense following renewed statements from President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration suggesting that Greenland’s status may no longer be settled.
President Trump has once again emphasized Greenland’s strategic importance, arguing that the Arctic territory is critical to U.S. national security amid expanding Chinese and Russian activity in the region. His comments have sent shockwaves through much of Europe’s political establishment, which has long assumed that American protection would remain unquestioned and permanent.
Denmark, which governs Greenland as part of the Danish kingdom, maintains that the island is “not for sale.” Yet it has limited ability to defend the territory independently and has historically relied heavily on U.S. military power to guarantee its security.
That contradiction is now coming into sharper focus. For decades, Copenhagen has asserted full sovereignty over Greenland while depending on American deterrence to uphold it. As Washington becomes more openly assertive in reassessing its global priorities, Danish leaders appear increasingly unsettled.
European governments have responded with urgent consultations. Denmark’s prime minister recently warned that any U.S. move on Greenland could threaten the future of NATO itself. Officials in France and Germany have spoken of possible “collective responses,” though concrete details remain vague.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot has said he received private assurances from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Washington is not planning to seize Greenland by force. Rubio has reportedly told lawmakers that discussions of force do not imply imminent action and that U.S. intentions remain exploratory.
Even so, those reassurances contrast with statements from the White House emphasizing that “all options remain on the table.” President Trump’s press team has made clear that military force is not ruled out in principle when U.S. national security is involved.
European diplomats privately acknowledge that the tone has shifted. What was once dismissed as rhetorical pressure is now being taken more seriously, particularly in light of recent demonstrations of American reach elsewhere in the world.
Denmark’s decision to publicly reaffirm its 1952 rules of engagement highlights how unprepared much of Europe may be for a future in which U.S. and EU interests diverge. The doctrine itself dates from a time when leaders believed survival depended on immediate, decisive action.
Greenland’s importance is not theoretical. The island hosts critical early-warning and space-surveillance facilities, sits along key Arctic transit routes, and lies at the center of growing great-power competition in the region. Declarations of European unity, critics argue, lack credibility without substantial military capability to back them up.
Without the United States, NATO’s deterrent power would be severely diminished. President Trump has repeatedly pointed out this imbalance, reminding allies that many NATO members failed for years to meet defense spending commitments, leaving American taxpayers to carry the burden.
Denmark’s revival of its shoot-first doctrine reflects a political class confronting a sobering reality: long-standing assumptions about permanent American guardianship may no longer hold in an era of shifting global priorities.
About Post Author
