At first glance, it doesn't seem to make any sense. The US president has deeply rattled Denmark by reiterating several times he may invade and occupy the semi-autonomous island of Greenland for "national security" reasons. But rather than looking at how it could bolster its national defenses against a possible — even if unlikely — incursion, the Danish parliament on June 11 overwhelming approved an agreement to let the US military enter the country whenever it wants, for whatever reason it sees fit.

"[T]he purpose of such presence of US forces is to further the efforts of the Parties to promote peace and security in the areas of mutual interest and benefit and to take part in common defense efforts," the Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) states. Some areas may even be put under the exclusive control of the US, although Greenland — which already hosts a US base — and the Faroe Islands are excluded. 

The DCA was drafted in 2023 with the Biden administration, at a time when transatlantic trust and cooperation were the norm and the notion of an unwelcome US deployment into any Danish territory was inconceivable. Why would Copenhagen advance the deal now?

DCA: Denmark Can't Argue?

"We didn't have any option but to say yes," explained Royal Danish Defense College military analyst Peter Viggo Jakobsen, acknowledging some heightened public opposition to the move ahead of the final parliamentary vote. Ultimately, he told DW, Denmark needs the DCA more than the US does.

Holding off ratification to show displeasure with the White House's Greenland statements, as some have advocated, would be "pointless" in Jakobsen's view. He doesn't think a land grab is actually likely to happen regardless of the president's bluster, so he advises just keeping Danish angst under wraps. "You saw what happened to Zelenskyy," when Ukraine's president tried to argue with Trump, Jakobsen reminded. "He was blown out of the water, and it was fantastic television. We're not really in a position where we want to do that, so I think you need to be tactical about it."

And being tactical for this analyst means emphasizing the original intent of the DCA, which is creating the conditions for the US to come quickly to the aid of Denmark in case of emergency.

"We will be deploying Danish forces on the Russian border in one of the Baltic countries" as part of NATO's presence there, Jakobsen explained, "and we need [the US] for air support if something should go wrong … and to enhance deterrence in order to make sure that the Russians don't attack our forces in the Baltics."

Danish MEP: "Terrible mistake" 

But Danish lawmaker Per Clausen, a member of The Left group in the European Parliament, is among those who wanted his fellow parliamentarians back home to reject the DCA. "The idea that the US should have troops in Denmark and the US decides when the troops should be here and where they should be — it's a terrible mistake!" he told DW.

"[Trump] had threatened Greenland. He had shown in his behavior against Ukrainians that we couldn't trust him," Clausen recalled, and "even in that situation, the Danish government said the 'US is our closest ally'. It will take some time to come out of this illusion, I think."

Clausen believes Copenhagen's real allies lie in Europe, especially its nearest neighbors, and that the government should be weaning itself off of dependency on the US instead of binding itself closer. "We need to strengthen the cooperation with other Nordic countries and with Canada in the situation we are in now," he added.

Nordic nods 

But Clausen may not find many kindred spirits wanting to distance themselves from US cooperation in the other Nordic countries: Finland, Sweden and Norway had all signed DCAs before Denmark did. 

Only in Sweden — which granted the US access to 17 bases or training areas in its agreement — was debate over the deal particularly "vociferous," as the Swedish Defense Research Agency's Niklas Granholm puts it.

In a five-hour session in the Swedish parliament, the deal was accused of opening up the possibility for American soldiers to run amok all over the country and for the US to deposit nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. These arguments were "at best uninformed or something else worse than that, in my view," Granholm said, and may also have been the "last hurrah of those who were against NATO membership and military alignment." It nonetheless passed handily. 

Redundant deal?

Speaking of NATO, why do these countries, which are now all covered by the alliance's mutual security guarantee, Article 5, even need a separate pledge that Washington would defend them if needed? Granholm describes it as a second layer of assurance. "There are NATO plans and there are US plans for Europe," he explained, and with 32 allies each having the right to hold up consensus on a call for Article 5 back-up, "you can imagine that there's some kind of blockage" in the midst of an emergency. He believes this was the main reason for Sweden's push for the DCA. 

But in Denmark, Peter Viggo Jakobsen has a more pessimistic rationale for why the DCA is necessary now more than ever. "Imagine that NATO should fall apart," he suggested. "It's no longer inconceivable, given what we've just experienced [with Trump] the last six months." 

He says under such a scenario, US self-interest would take over and they'd need a presence in northern Europe. "They're very concerned about the Russian nuclear weapons that are based on the Kola Peninsula. And if you want to take them out, then you need to be present in Greenland, you need to be present in Iceland, you need be present in Norway and in Finland and in Sweden." 

And, Jakobsen added, "it's also useful to be able to place aircraft in Denmark." Now with the DCA, the US won't even have to ask first.