Part II of a CAM Exclusive on Historic U.S.-Danish Military-Intelligence Cooperation (See Part 1 here)

We were awakened to the roar of F-16s exercising overhead. The day before, February 10, the Social Democrat government announced yet another escalation in its war-threatening measures alongside its main partner, the United States: the “Defense Cooperation Agreement” (DCA). It entails more military might from the U.S. Perhaps, we were awakened by Danish fighter pilots’ celebrating.

For the first time in Denmark’s history, its politicians will allow U.S. troops and war machinery on Danish mainland soil. There have not been foreign troops welcomed in Denmark since shortly after World War II—other than the tacit acceptance of Nazi Germany—and they were British and Soviets.^[1]

The self-described Social Democrat leaders said they would try and forge a similar relationship that the U.S. enjoys with Norway, which has hosted U.S. training exercises and war aircraft and agreed to have the U.S. build three more air and ship bases it will use. And as we go to press, Denmark has called its frigate Esbern Snare away from pirate patrol in Guniea Bay to join NATO ships threatening Russia

The NATO conflict with Russia over Ukraine and Crimea, begun in 2013-14, has been used by U.S.-NATO to broaden its military occupation in several parts of Europe with more aircraft bases and warships in harbors.

Recently, both Sweden and Finland expressed interest in joining NATO, despite majority opinion opposed to this. With more false-flag propaganda, public opinion is turning more to the right and pro-NATO “for security.” ^[2]

At this stage of the new DCA, there is not to be a U.S. military base and atomic weapons are not to be placed here during “peacetime,” which is still in effect since 1957 (explained in part 1). Nevertheless, the U.S. had secretly placed atomic weapons on its Greenland colony. 

Although this prime minister said no to atomic weapons, another could say yes. There were no other conditions for U.S. troops and war materials explained by these leaders. What they did not inform (or remind) the public was that Denmark’s agreement with NATO when it first joined was that foreign troops would not be allowed on Danish soil in times of peace.

The U.S., however, may choose to interpret what “peacetime” means. Furthermore, whether a prime minister here or there says no to the U.S. does not mean the superpower will obey others’ national interests. The Pentagon—as Politiken’s February 11 editorial, “Uncle Sam in Denmark,” pointed out—does not tell others what they can do (nor does the CIA).

Russia’s ambassador to Denmark, Vladimir Barbin, replied to Danish media that his country sees the DCA as a definite confrontation against its sovereignty and its people. He also brought in the 1990 agreement—“Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Paris Charter” (OSCE)—signed by 34 heads of state, including the parties concerned with DCA. The ambassador said that this cooperative agreement is ignored by the U.S., NATO, and specifically by what Denmark is proposing.

Joseph Gerson, President of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security, wrote about this agreement and others in Common Dreams. He stated:

The OSCE “ushered in a new era as states made an unprecedented commitment to domestic individual freedoms, democratic governance, human rights, and transnational cooperation.”

Seven years later, it was followed by the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which enshrined commitments to equal security and to not seek security at the expense of the other’s security. And in OSCE’s 1999 European Security Charter, its member-states committed “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

Some social democrat-oriented members of Denmark’s parliament have expressed concern that, if there were a war between the U.S. and Russia, Denmark’s capitulation to the U.S. would place it among the first targets, especially in a nuclear war. Some wonder why U.S. troops are “necessary” now when they were not during all the time the Soviet Union existed and when there were many proxy wars, such as against Southeast Asia.

“I don’t see how this is in Denmark’s interest,” questioned socialist-oriented parliamentarian Karsten Hoeng.

There are several references about a future U.S. president, like Donald Trump, being so erratic that his/her policies could bring Danes into an unwanted violent situation.

“A strategic bomb in Danish politics,” Politiken led off. The new approach places Denmark “closer to the allies’ inner-circle than ever before.” While this daily, and all others, are glad for that, there are a couple of possible drawbacks.

“The USA will hardly depart from its firm principle of neither confirming nor denying if there are atomic weapons on visiting aircraft and ships. Even if it did, what would Denmark do? Quietly accept atom-weapons on Danish turf?”

As the editors wrote, such was the case in the 1980s when Social Democrats, then more loyal to their principles, raised the issue with a conservative prime minister concerning a visiting U.S. warship suspected of carrying nuclear weapons. PM Paul Schlüter (1982-93) called an election over that single issue and he won again.

Politiken’s lead article kicked off with “Frederiksen’s admiring homage to the United States is close to overtaking Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s view of Denmark’s best friend in the world and its crucial security guarantee.”

Readers are reminded that right-wing PM Rasmussen was considered by many to be a “lapdog” for all of the U.S.’s policies, especially military and war, while Social Democrats were more independent. That has changed in the past two decades. SD is as tight with the U.S. on everything as the right wing and conservatives have always been. Now, both right and “left” are with the U.S.

Enhedslisten (Red-Green) Social Democrat support party spokesperson Eva Flyvholm brought up a little-heard term in Denmark—“sovereignty”—in her critique.

“The new strategy is a big thing in relation to Danish sovereignty. Americans will have control over the activities and soldiers that come. I mean we should not enter into such an agreement.”

One of Politiken’s sources, Henrik Breitenbauch, leader of Copenhagen’s University Center for Military Studies and a senior fellow at the pro-NATO) Atlantic Council, stated that “sovereignty is always a question of degree bending.” I doubt that any U.S. president would accept such a definition for its sovereignty.

DR and Politiken both interviewed separately Peter Viggo Jakobsen, a key military academic expert. He sees advantages with breaking tradition against foreign troops on its territory. “They come with money to spend,” he said, and “their presence will have a deterrent effect on any foreign power intentions to invade Denmark.”

That opinion can be translated to mean that, with all the demonizing propaganda against President Putin, the “peace-loving” but tougher American militarists will be such a deterrent, even if Russia sees this agreement as a provocation against its interests.

“There is not anything they can do about that. Denmark will also accept that USA itself will have legal jurisdiction over whatever their soldiers commit here,” confided Jakobsen.

DR’s international correspondent, Steffen Gram, opined: “This here is re-establishing NATO, which many were in doubt about what NATO could be used for after the Cold War”—a side-reference to Donald Trump. Gram foresees that the crisis with Russia will “last a very long time.”

Desperate Social Democrat Government Fabricates War Threat Distraction

The government’s unexpected announcement of the new “Defense Cooperation Agreement” must have been prepared to announce when, on January 31, the hard-pressed Social Democrat government held a press conference to announce a “new strategy to steer Danish foreign policy in ‘the most serious security crisis for Europe since the Cold War.’”

This strategy is deemed necessary simply based on unsubstantiated demonizing propaganda that “Putin” is prepared to invade Ukraine. It comes at the time (coincidentally?) when the government is confronted with what the PM calls the “very serious” breach of national security secrets.

“We are seeing a very worrying situation unfolding at the Ukrainian-Russian border…Russia’s aggression…shows us that you can never take peace or freedom for granted,” PM Frederiksen said. 

“The new strategy contains five main areas for managing foreign and security policy: values diplomacy, security diplomacy, climate diplomacy, migration diplomacy and economic diplomacy. We want to strengthen our alliances and partnerships with the countries and societies that share our values. This applies not least to the United States…Denmark’s most important ally. NATO and the United States are the guarantors of Denmark’s security.”

Nothing concrete was forthcoming. DR concluded with a six-minute clip on how “aggressive” Russia is. Military experts say Denmark will be even closer to U.S. interests (if that is possible).

Bramsen had just sent four F-16s to the Baltic to “protect” them against the Russians. She gave an interview to the weekly Weekend Avisen in which she stated: “It basically requires that we have a security understanding throughout society: The threats live everywhere, and the whole of society must be aware.” 

In other words: no deviation from U.S/NATO domination; Russia, China and Iran must tow the line.

Five days later, Bramsen lost her war post. Within a 24-hour period beginning at 9:00 a.m. on February 4, as the court session against Findsen began, other political, military and juridical events took place in Denmark, bringing the world to the brink of the greatest crisis since the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet there are no protests in this country.

Prime Minister Merete Frederiksen reshuffled three ministries. The most sensational change was the removal of unpopular Defense Minister Trine Bramsen. She was moved to head the new Transport-Equality ministry. There was no explanation for why “equality” issues should be with transport, nor why Bramsen was moved down the ministry ladder. 

The Defense Union, however, had accused Bramsen of “destroying the trust that binds defense together.” There have been several conflicts within the military under Bramsen’s watch. 

Tax Minister Morten Boedskov was given her former job, rewarded for his “experience and reliability.”

The previous transport minister, Benny Engelbrecht, did not get another ministry post. Enhedslisten had demanded his removal for informing Parliament that the ministry’s new $25 billion infrastructure plan was CO2 neutral when it was not, as the engineer trade newspaper revealed. “And to boot, back when the proposal was revealed, Engelbrecht informed Parliament that figures for CO2 emissions regarding the plan didn’t exist. Except they did, and Engelbrecht has been accused of deliberately keeping them from the other parties.” 

The first thing new Defense Minister Morten Boedskov did, within hours of his appointment, was to tell the media that he saw no reason not to send some of Denmark’s remaining “Stinger missiles” to Ukraine, which it bought from the U.S in the 1990s. 

Ukraine’s ambassador to Denmark had told the media that the Ukrainian military wanted them because they were so effective in the hands of Afghan rebels. Just three days before Bramsen was replaced, she had stated that Denmark did not have such weapons. Her lack of military knowledge is a key reason for being shifted out. 

It was extremist Mujahadin jihadists, including Osama bin Laden, who fired U.S.-donated “Stingers” against Soviet aircraft. They were sent to overthrow the communist-led Afghan government in the 1980s.

Unfortunately for the fresh war minister, Boedskov’s technological military experts found that none of the Stinger missiles were good enough to use. The new war minister sent two F-16s to Bornholm, Denmark’s easternmost island, as a “signal” to Putin that he dare not invade Denmark.

President Joe Biden had just ordered that Germany’s new Chancellor Olaf Scholz disallow the newly completed Nord Stream 2 gas line to function if “Putin steps up his aggression against Ukraine.”

“There will no longer be anything called Nord Stream 2 if the Russians invade Ukraine,” Biden informed the entire world, pointing his finger to a leader of what he believes is a U.S. colony.

While Scholz tried to appease the war-thirsty U.S. president, he would not say what sanctions Germany would engage in. More than half of Germany’s energy comes from Russia, and it needs more.

So, the U.S.’s primary Eye within EU-Europe sent its Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to Germany to tell Scholz what he could do. He could buy more Danish windmills. DR’s piece concerning her visit points out that her Social Democrat chancellor-colleague is characterized by “some critics” as “soft-sweetened” over for Russia.

The Danish government opposes the gas pipeline, which runs along Bornholm, and the Prime Minister stressed after her meeting with Scholz, “The reports from the White House about Nord Stream 2 are very good.”

France’s President Emmanuel Macron visited President Putin in Moscow. He did not threaten sanctions; instead he wanted Europe to engage in its own dialogue with Russia and Ukraine, and not be bound to U.S. presidents. Chancellor Scholz plans to visit Putin as well.

Neither France nor Germany has threatened its own sanctions, albeit as members of the EU they are a part of any EU sanctions. When President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the French and German governments opposed the war. However, they came around after much pressure from Washington-Wall Street.

Surprisingly to many readers (and myself at the time), the new Russian president in 2001, Vladimir Putin, extended real military and intelligence assistance to Bush’s war in Afghanistan, and even proposed that Russia join NATO. Bush took his aid but rejected Russia inside NATO.

President Vladimir Putin met with China’s Xi Jinping in Beijing on the Winter Olympics’ opening day, even as the United States and Denmark intensified their non-factual claim that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine. The claim is based simply on the fact that Russia has troops on its own land close to Ukraine—as though that is a war crime and something the U.S. never does. The U.S. has hundreds of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops in scores of other countries.

Putin and Xi enhanced their alliance: mutual support regarding the U.S-Ukraine NATO aggression; opposition to U.S.’s inciting Taiwan’s independence from China; and inciting and financing Hong Kong protesters against China’s interests. 

China and Russia simply want U.S./NATO to stop provoking their geographic areas. Russia may step up its advanced military technology exports and energy fuels to China, and Russia will buy more consumer goods from China if U.S./EU increase their sanctions against both countries.

The U.S./EU warn these two nations (the world’s greatest territory and the largest population) with more severe sanctions. They speak of ceasing exports to Russia of vital microchips and other technology; preventing economic transactions in U.S. dollars (perhaps confiscating their funds in U.S.-controlled banks); and freezing the expensive Nord Stream 2 natural gas connection between Russia and Germany.

Conclusion 

When the current geo-political hullabaloo dies down, and Russia has not invaded anybody, the Western aggressors will claim that their bellicosity paid off, having scared the scoundrel Ruskies from an invasion they never planned. It is all about Western capitalist encroachment against Russia’s and China’s capitalist competitors, especially concerning energy. We had been taught that capitalism’s nature is all about competition, but the West has changed the rules.

In my mind, the “Defense Cooperative Agreement” emerges at a time when Denmark is desperate to show Big Daddy that the misfortunate problem with one or more whistleblowers concerning spying on any and all is to be compensated for.

Several media outlets have criticized the intelligence services for assuming that they are beyond “democratic control.” Editorials and juridical experts have criticized leaders of Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service (FE)—the equivalent to CIA—and the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET)—the equivalent of FBI—for allowing increased power to go to their heads ever since they began receiving extra resources following the terror attacks in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. (See part 1 Danish Defense Intelligence Chief Is Jailed by Social Democratic Government—Possibly to Protect U.S. Spy Programs – CovertAction Magazine )

Politiken’seditors urged the government to present to parliament the judges’ investigation report so it could determine if FE has kept policymakers informed. They also proposed that the new Danish Intelligence Oversight Committee (TET) be granted powers to interrogate FE’s employees, and ascertain if they comply with the law, which until now has not been possible. Nothing like that has happened.

There are other ironies in these matters: the betrayal of Denmark’s long-standing friendly association with European countries and their leaders; the fact that it has been Social Democrat women leaders who have been backing illegal spying activities, starting with the first woman who became Prime Minister, Social Democrat Helle Thorning-Schmidt (2011-15).

Following Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations, she embraced her “comrade” Chancellor Angela Merkel, assuring her that Denmark was not and would not be involved in spying on her. All the while she was lying. Since June 2019, it has been the next Social Democrat woman PM, Mette Frederiksen, and her female war minister, Trine Bramsen, who have gone deeper into spying activities for their master state.

These so-called “social democrats”—who are referred to as “socialists” by Bernie Sanders, and “communists” by Donald Trump and other far-right Republicans—have sold out their country to the U.S. empire.

Last year, four women led four of the five Scandinavian countries—two of three are Social Democrats and one Red-Green. The only male was the conservative president of Finland, Süulí Väinämö Niinisto. Last October, a male Social Democrat, Jonas Gahr Stoere, took over as Norway’s prime minister. Now he is stuck with the DCA agreement that conservative PM Erna Solberg made with the United States. All five Nordic states are either in NATO or seek to be.

I fear that the generally accepted notion—that, if women become leaders, they would be more inclined toward peaceful diplomacy than more naturally aggressive males—seems to be untrue as well. The same goes for both genders of Social Democrats and Democrats: They are just as power-hungry and enthusiastic for war as right-wingers.

Philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in his 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews.  “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing,” wrote

For a long time, it has been normal among the Danish populace that sovereignty is not an issue, not a problem for the vast majority. It seems that they, the media and academics simply take it for granted that “national security” is best left in the hands of the White House, the Pentagon, and 17 intelligence services across the Atlantic Ocean.

Everything goes in the name of “necessary evil,” and the common saying, “I have nothing to hide.” However, with the DCA issue, sovereignty is at least a word that some people are beginning to articulate; and perhaps a movement of opposition will develop.

---

1. Russia attacked German troops sent to occupy Bornholm island after Germany officially capitulated. During two days of bombings and battles, a few Danes were killed and wounded. Russian forces remained there for 11 months.↑

2. Are Denmark’s and United States values, according to its Social Democrat prime minister, such as Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks/Julian Assange have revealed to the world: Collateral Murder – Wikileaks – Iraq – YouTube
   
   It behooves all peace-loving, free speech/free press-loving, human values-loving people to come out with real support for Julian Assange, whom the U.S./U.K. and Denmark want to see dead.

Join Our Messenger Julian

You will be more
More than just yourself
In fellowship will you be your true self

We become more
When we integrate what Julian Assange has revealed
When we say no to his hangmen

You are not an island unto yourself
You are yourself
When we are in one another’s hands

(Written on the day of the allegedly “High Court” of UK (USA) decision to extradite Julian—the same day the world should be celebrating International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2021.)↑

---

CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptions, orders and donations from readers like you.

Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism

Click the whistle and donate

When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.

CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.

Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.

CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.

We sincerely thank you for your support.

---

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.

Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.

Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.

By using this site, you agree to these terms above.

---

About the Author