In a dramatic revelation that reads like a Cold War thriller, the Danish defence ministry has reportedly instructed its troops stationed in Greenland to prepare to "shoot first, ask questions later" should any foreign force—specifically the United States—attempt to forcibly capture the vast, icy territory. This directive, brought to light by the Danish newspaper Berlingske, underscores the lingering geopolitical tensions ignited by U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated expressions of interest in acquiring Greenland.
The order is not a new, reactive measure but part of a longstanding rule established in 1952. It mandates that soldiers “immediately take up the fight” against any invading force, acting “without waiting for or seeking orders, even if the commanders in question are not aware of the declaration of war or state of war,” as reported by The Independent.
Its roots trace back to the traumatic Nazi invasion of Denmark in 1940, when German forces swiftly overran Copenhagen and other key areas. The Danish military’s inability to mount an effective, immediate response to the blitzkrieg-style invasion led to a national reckoning. The result was the creation of this "shoot first" protocol—a standing order designed to ensure that any future invasion would be met with instant, decentralized resistance from the outset, regardless of the chain of command. This rule has remained formally in place for over seven decades, a dormant contingency plan now finding startling relevance.
The directive gained contemporary significance due to Donald Trump’s well-publicized fascination with Greenland. Since his presidency, Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of the U.S. purchasing or otherwise acquiring the autonomous territory, which remains under the Kingdom of Denmark.
Trump’s rationale is squarely focused on national security and great-power competition. “I will say this about Greenland - we need Greenland from a national security standpoint. It’s very strategic right now. Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place," Trump stated in a recent media interaction. His interest reflects Greenland’s immense strategic value: its location offers dominance over Arctic shipping routes and access to vast natural resources, and it serves as a critical vantage point for missile defence and surveillance.
The notion has been firmly and repeatedly rejected by both the Danish government and Greenland’s own leadership. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen famously called the idea "absurd," while Greenland’s officials have consistently affirmed their desire to remain part of the Danish realm.
The situation presents a profound irony and a potential crisis for the NATO alliance. Both Denmark and the United States are founding and committed members of the mutual defence pact. The revelation of a Danish standing order to potentially fire on U.S. troops highlights the extreme scenario planners have felt compelled to consider.
When pressed on whether preserving NATO or acquiring Greenland was his priority, Trump’s response to The New York Times was starkly transactional: "It may be a choice." This statement, more than any other, frames the Greenland desire not as a friendly negotiation but as a national interest that could override alliance solidarity.
The resurgence of this 1952 directive is a symbolic artifact of a new, more volatile era. It represents:
·The return of territorial ambition as a feature of great-power politics.
·The fragility of alliances in the face of unilateral national interests.
·The Arctic’s transformation from a frozen periphery into a hotly contested geopolitical arena.
For Denmark, the order is a legal and historical formality, but its public discussion serves as a firm, if startling, signal of sovereignty. For observers, it is a reminder that history’s protocols often wait in the shadows, ready to be activated when old notions of conquest clash with the modern world order. The idea of NATO allies contemplating armed conflict over territory may seem unthinkable, but the very existence of this directive shows that for some in the halls of defence, it is a possibility that has never been entirely ruled out.
Leave Your Comment