How have NATO allies and Danish officials responded to the letter and the Greenland demand in official statements?
Executive summary
NATO allies have publicly rallied behind Denmark and Greenland, issuing joint statements that only Denmark and Greenland can decide the island’s future, warning against unilateral U.S. action, and moving to bolster Arctic security with multinational deployments and exercises; Danish officials have responded with firm denunciations of U.S. pressure, warnings that any attack would end NATO, a stepped-up Danish and allied military presence around Greenland, and diplomatic efforts to channel disputes into working groups [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. NATO’s coordinated political backing: “It’s for Denmark and Greenland — and them only”
European and transatlantic allies issued a joint political front, with leaders from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Canada and the Netherlands explicitly saying decisions about Greenland belong to Denmark and Greenland alone and underlining that Arctic security should be addressed collectively through NATO, not by unilateral moves [1] [6]; the EU commission also voiced “full solidarity” with Denmark and Greenland and framed allied military activity as defensive and non-threatening [7].
2. Military signaling: allied deployments and joint exercises as deterrence
Allies translated words into presence by confirming deployments of small multinational contingents to Greenland to participate in or prepare for Denmark-led Arctic exercises — Germany, France, Norway, Sweden and others dispatched personnel to bolster a visible multinational footprint under the auspices of Operation Arctic Endurance and related arrangements, a clear deterrent signal to any forceful acquisition attempt [2] [8] [5].
3. Danish leaders’ public rebukes and red lines: “Enough is enough”
Danish officials spoke bluntly: Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen condemned what they called unacceptable pressure and “blackmail,” with Frederiksen warning that an attack on a NATO ally would mean the end of the alliance and describing U.S. demands as unreasonable; Copenhagen framed Greenland’s defence as a shared NATO concern while rejecting external bargaining over sovereignty [4] [9] [3].
4. Tactical diplomacy: talks, working groups and constrained engagement with the U.S.
Denmark and Greenland sent ministers to the U.S. for high-level meetings that produced a promise to create a working group aimed at addressing American security concerns while respecting Danish “red lines”; Danish officials characterized talks as “frank” but said fundamental disagreement remained, signalling Copenhagen’s preference for institutional negotiation over capitulation [5] [8].
5. Allies’ institutional responses and warnings about escalation
NATO’s political machinery reacted: senior figures, including NATO leadership, engaged directly with U.S. counterparts and allies issued joint communiqués warning that tariffs or coercive economic measures would risk “a dangerous downward spiral” for transatlantic relations; some allies explicitly framed their actions as strengthening NATO’s Arctic posture rather than threatening any state [10] [7] [11].
6. U.S. statements and alternative narratives acknowledged by partners
Official U.S. messaging complicated the picture: the White House told the BBC that acquiring Greenland was a “national security priority,” while State Department spokespeople later emphasised commercial partnerships and shared concern about adversary activity in the Arctic — positions allies have publicly noted even as they reject forcible acquisition and press for NATO-based solutions [12].
7. Underlying agendas and domestic politics shaping the responses
European unity is cast both as principled defence of sovereignty and as alliance management — leaders want to avoid a precedent of great-power coercion while protecting NATO’s cohesion; at the same time, U.S. rhetoric from the administration mixes strategic arguments about Arctic basing and minerals with domestic political signaling, which European capitals view as politically driven and destabilising [3] [13]. Danish officials’ combination of military reinforcement, diplomatic engagement and public rebuke reflects a calculation to shore up alliance support while preserving legal and political sovereignty for Greenland [5] [2].
8. What the official record does and does not show
The sourced official statements and actions document unified allied political backing for Denmark, multinational deployments to Greenland, stern Danish warnings to Washington and a commitment to negotiate security concerns via NATO processes and a working group; the sources do not provide internal deliberations beyond public statements, nor do they establish private concessions or outcomes from ongoing U.S.–Danish technical talks [1] [2] [5].