Denmark summons US diplomat as NATO ally accused of covert Greenland operations
Unprecedented diplomatic crisis emerges as alliance partners clash over territorial integrity
In 75 years of NATO history, no member has ever summoned another's diplomat over accusations of territorial subversion. That changed when Denmark called in America's senior envoy to protest alleged covert operations aimed at detaching Greenland from Danish control.
The diplomatic confrontation represents a fracture without precedent, one ally formally challenging another over systematic attempts to undermine its sovereignty. When Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned US Chargé d'Affaires Mark Stroh, he was responding to detailed allegations that American operatives had infiltrated Greenlandic society, seeking to build support for the territory's transfer to Washington's control.
"Any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Kingdom will of course be unacceptable," Rasmussen declared. His measured language cannot mask the gravity of the moment. Summoning an ally's senior diplomat is diplomatic theatre typically reserved for hostile powers, not security partners bound by collective defence treaties.
The allegations, detailed by Denmark's public broadcaster DR, describe Americans compiling lists of pro-US Greenlanders for potential recruitment into organised secession movements. Though DR could not establish who was directing these operations, Denmark's intelligence services have issued stark warnings about systematic influence campaigns targeting the Arctic territory.
Intelligence warns of systematic subversion
Denmark's security service PET describes ongoing efforts to "create discord in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland" through "traditional, physical influence agents or via disinformation." This is no theoretical concern. DR's investigation documented an American visitor to Greenland's capital Nuuk allegedly building recruitment lists of residents supporting US acquisition.
The scale matters. Greenland's entire population is 56,800 people - smaller than most European cities. In such a community, covert operations become nearly impossible to conceal. Yet PET has strengthened its operational presence there and enhanced cooperation with local authorities, deployments unprecedented in peacetime alliance relations.
This marks the second diplomatic summons this year. In May, Denmark protested Wall Street Journal reports that US intelligence agencies had been instructed to focus on Greenland, gathering intelligence about independence movements and attitudes toward American mineral extraction. When confronted, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard notably failed to deny the reports, instead accusing the Journal of "breaking the law and undermining our nation's security" for publishing them.
Her response suggested accuracy rather than fabrication.
Academic experts find no historical parallel
Jens Ladefoged Mortensen from the University of Copenhagen calls Denmark's response a "diplomatic yellow card" without precedent in Danish-US relations. "This hostile attitude towards Denmark from the Trump administration is shocking," he told the BBC. "As a pro-American country we're asking why are you doing this."
His bewilderment reflects broader European confusion. The alliance was designed for collective defence against external threats, with institutional blindness to scenarios where members might pursue contradictory territorial objectives against each other.
The timing compounds Danish concerns. While alleging covert operations in Greenland, Washington simultaneously targeted Danish economic interests, halting Ørsted's wind farm off Rhode Island despite being 80% complete. Ørsted is majority-owned by the Danish state, making economic retaliation indirect pressure on Copenhagen's government.
President Trump has declared he would not rule out seizing Greenland by force. Vice-President JD Vance visited US military installations there in March, accusing Denmark of insufficient protection against Russian and Chinese interests. Greenland leader Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded with clarity, "We don't belong to anyone else. We decide our own future."
Alliance vulnerability exposed
The crisis reveals dangerous blindspots in protective alliance structures. Smaller NATO members joined seeking security guarantees, yet now face scenarios where the alliance's dominant power becomes a territorial threat rather than protector.
Greenland's strategic value has exploded as Arctic ice melting opens shipping routes and reveals mineral wealth. The territory hosts crucial radar systems and provides Arctic staging areas. Control would significantly enhance any nation's Arctic presence whilst denying competitors the same advantages.
Denmark faces an impossible calculation. Maintaining Greenlandic loyalty requires demonstrating that Danish sovereignty offers better protection than American alternatives. Yet with US military installations already present and Washington's superior resources apparent, Copenhagen must rely on legitimacy rather than power.
The precedent terrifies European allies. If America normalises influence operations against allied territories, why should China respect Taiwanese autonomy or Russia acknowledge Baltic sovereignty? Such precedents could destabilise contested regions worldwide.
Historical echoes of imperial competition
European observers recognise disturbing parallels with Russian tactics in former Soviet territories. Moscow has employed influence operations, economic pressure, and military intimidation to detach regions from neighbouring control. Similar American activities would legitimise methods previously condemned as imperial aggression.
The institutional response remains unclear. NATO's founders never anticipated territorial disputes between alliance members. The organisation lacks established procedures for mediating internal territorial competition.
Denmark's measured response reflects careful calculation. Summoning the diplomat signals serious concern without triggering irreversible breakdown. Copenhagen seeks to preserve broader cooperation whilst establishing clear boundaries on territorial integrity.
Yet if American territorial ambitions represent permanent strategic shift rather than temporary policy, European allies face fundamental questions about their security architecture. An alliance designed for collective defence offers limited protection when the leader becomes a competitor.
The sovereignty question
The Greenland dispute embodies broader tensions about great power competition in an interconnected world. When alliance partners control significant portions of each other's strategic industries, economic relationships become tools of territorial coercion.
Ørsted's wind farm halt demonstrates this integration. Copenhagen cannot easily retaliate against US territorial pressure without damaging Danish economic interests. Modern interdependence, designed to prevent conflict, instead creates multiple pressure points for ambitious powers.
The crisis also highlights self-determination complexities. Most Greenlandic political parties favour eventual independence, though disagreeing on timing. If American operatives are building pro-US networks, they could argue they're supporting self-determination rather than territorial aggression.
Denmark would counter that any such activities constitute interference in internal affairs and alliance violations. The constitutional arrangement - Greenland enjoys self-government whilst Copenhagen controls foreign policy - creates vulnerabilities external powers might exploit.
What alliance solidarity means
The resolution will likely depend on broader American political developments. If territorial ambitions represent temporary policy, diplomatic pressure might restore normal relations. If they reflect deeper strategic shifts, European allies may need fundamental security reassessment.
Smaller NATO members will closely observe whether institutional safeguards protect their territorial integrity from alliance partners, or whether they must develop alternative arrangements for an uncertain world.
The Greenland crisis thus transcends bilateral friction. It poses fundamental questions about alliance solidarity when traditional assumptions about international cooperation face unprecedented challenges. Denmark's diplomatic protest may be remembered as the moment protective alliances revealed their capacity to become predatory ones.
As Arctic ice continues melting and great power competition intensifies, the stakes will only grow higher.