[luser007]

A bit of background:

Since WW2 Denmark has aligned itself with the US. This has been the consensus since then across all the major parties (Conservatives, Liberals, Social-Liberals and Social-Democratic (with a noteworthy exception[1])).

The stance has during all those years from time to time been challenged by fringe parties like the Communist Party and the far-right Progress Party (who suggested that the Danish defence budget should be cut entirely and replaced with a answering machine saying "we surrender" in Russian).

The Danish populace has not always wanted this "hard alignment". As an example, Denmark would not allow American bases in Denmark (contrary to UK, Germany, etc). But we allowed the Americans to build an Airforce Base at Thule on Greenland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Air_Base).

The Social-Democratic prime ministers also communicated publicly, that Denmark would not allow nuclear weapons in peacetime. Yet, it was communicated to the American ambassador in 1960 that Denmark would ignore it, if US had nuclear weapons at Thule (as long as they didn't tell anyone). All was well until 1968 when an American B-52 crashes near Thule with thermonuclear bombs on board. It is worth noting that English wikipedia does not have an account of the incident, but the Danish does: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule-sagen_(1968)

Well, the cold war "won" and after 1990s aligned even more with the US. In the late 90s the previously state-owned TeleDanmark company (telephony monopoly) was privatized and sold to the American company Ameritech beginning in 1997.

Around the same time the Americans approached the Danish politicians again. And a deal similar to the nuclear weapons on Greenland was reached: "You're allowed to use our infrastructure to spy on people, but we're not going to make it official". As the same time Denmark was in "the coalition of the willing" sending troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, it is worth noting, that this is not a partisan issue within the Danish political elite. We've had Conservative, Liberal and Social-Democratic Ministers of Defence the last twenty years and they have all been briefed about this cooperation. The same goes for their permanent secretaries.

Snowden revealed a lot about this cooperation back in 2015. The "nifty" part from the American perspective is, that they can tell the Danish "We won't spy on Danish people, only foreigners". They then approach Britain and says: "We won't spy on British people, only foreigners". The do the same with Norway, The Netherlands etc. and... well, suddenly they're able to spy on all Europeans. Denmark has a great position for spying because a lot of traffic from Eastern Europe travels through Denmark (and Sweden, but they are not part of NATO). Also, hearsay is that the spying on German Chancellor Merkel was done from Denmark.

Around 2014 the Danish politicians decided to establish "Tilsynet med EfterretningsTjenesterne" (TET) aka. "Supervisory Authority on the Intelligence Agencies" to keep an eye on the intelligence agencies replacing some toothless organisation that previously had the task.

In 2020 TET made a press release: "We cannot get the information we require from the intelligence agencies". The Minister of Defence at this time is Trine Bramsen, who is most known for complaining about nerds being hard to approach and understand for her friends and it is impossible to understand why they all wear white tennis socks (I kid you not: https://www.version2.dk/blog/opraab-til-it-noerderne-smid-te... - use Google translate for a cringe experience).

She is totally clueless.

But that was great in this situation, because as any politician she wants to show how she can solve issues in a resolute manner. So she sends home a bunch of civil servants (including head of the Defence Intelligence Agency, a previous permanent secretary, etc. The top brass). Apparently she didn't get (or understand) the verbal memo about: "Don't ask and don't tell about our cooperation with the Americans".

Like an elephant in a porcelain store.

And retired Ministers of Defence were all gunning at her for "ruining the cooperation with our greatest allies" etc. They, of course, do not want it to be revealed, that they had this information.

Well. Time passes. And just before Christmas it was announced that the matter has been investigated. The public are not allowed to hear, what has been investigated. Or who. But the conclusion is that the intelligence agencies has done nothing wrong. Nothing to see here. Move along.

A couple of days later, the directors (not the editors!) at a couple of major newspapers are called to a meeting with the head of the Police Intelligence Agency and the Defence Military Agency (temp head) where they are politely told: "We just want to let you know, that harming our cooperation with foreign powers carry a 12 year sentence" (it's a very long sentence in Danish terms).

The Police Intelligence Agency has been playing "whack a mole", literally, for some time: Who leaked to TET? Who leaked to the press?

We are currently in a situation, where the state-sponsored national Danish broadcaster (DR) is reporting, that the Police Intelligence Agency (PET) has been surveilling, including wire-tapping, the head of the Defence Intelligence Agency: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/hemmelig-pet-taskforce-afl... (again, Google translate).

I hope this provides some context. There has since the 1960s been an understanding in the top of Danish society that "The Americans are our friends, we cannot say 'no'.". Even if the Danish population has been kept in the dark. A clueless Minister of Defence by accident kicks the hornet's nest and now somebody must take the fall. But be aware that they're all in on it. No minister (left or right) is innocent and the same goes for the civil servants at the very top.

But it is not all bad! Whereas Germany was earlier our primary trading partner, Denmark nowadays export more to the US than to our neighbouring country. A few dead soldiers and no privacy for your population was totally worth it.

[1] During the 1980s some parts of the Social-Democrats wanted Denmark to re-align. This caused the so-called "footnote politic". Whenever NATO wanted to take some initiative, the Danish foreign minister had to negotiate footnotes saying "Denmark is not part of this and that".

[znd]

The english Wikipedia seems to have the article of the B52-crash in Thule here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

[luser007]

Thanks for the correction! Didn't find it at first.

It supports my assertion that the Danish politicians "indicated" something to the Americans and told the Danish public something else:

" Denmark's nuclear-free zone policy originated in 1957, when the coalition government decided in the lead-up to the Paris NATO summit not to stockpile nuclear weapons on its soil in peacetime.[77][78] The presence of the bomber in Greenland airspace in 1968 therefore triggered public suspicions and accusations that the policy was being violated.

[...]

The report blamed Danish Prime Minister H. C. Hansen for intentionally introducing ambiguity in the Danish–U.S. security agreement: he was not asked about, nor did he mention, the official Danish nuclear policy when meeting with the United States ambassador in 1957 to discuss Thule Air Base. Hansen followed up the discussion with an infamous letter pointing out that the issue of "supplies of munition of a special kind" was not raised during the discussion, but that he had nothing further to add.[87] In doing so, the report concluded, he tacitly gave the United States the go-ahead to store nuclear weapons at Thule.[88]

[...]

The report also confirmed that the United States stockpiled nuclear weapons in Greenland until 1965, contradicting assurances by Danish foreign minister Niels Helveg Petersen that the weapons were in Greenland's airspace, but never on the ground."

[shantara]

Thank you! This was a very enlightening comment, which adds a lot more context to this news story.

[jollybean]

So before the tiny Danish nation of just few million people was allied with the US, you were occupied by the Germans, your Jews exported and murdered, many citizens dead.

And the Americans (and English, Canadians etc.) liberated you.

And then for decades, you were up against the Soviet Empire where the Americans provide a pillar of security.

And somehow this relationship with the Americans is bad, exactly how?

You haven't provided any evidence of wrongdoing in terms of cooperation with the Americans.

The US collects intelligence on everyone - so does Germany. And the UK. And ... Denmark. That's normal in 2021.

[luser007]

Arguing that "it's okay to do it because the others do it as well" is kindergarten-level argumentation.

A key factor in a friendly relationship is to be able to tell your friend "no" without him/her getting angry. If one of the people in a relationship is forced to be subservient at all times we normally call it an abusive relationship.

And I think you kinda missed the point: Danish politicians have done everything in their power to please the US since the 1960s and have done so increasingly since Bill Clinton was president. That's fine, if they told the populace that is what they're doing. Instead what they're doing is making hidden agreements with the US, that includes spying on our closest allies and neighbours (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spie...) all the while they tell the Danish people that it is impossible to say if Americans are spying in Denmark.

If it is such a great benefit to Denmark to act as a lap dog for the US, you would think the Danish politicians was proud of it, wouldn't you?

[jollybean]

"Arguing that "it's okay to do it because the others do it as well" is kindergarten-level argumentation."

?

Saying "Americans are evil because I heard something on the news and am going to assume a bunch of facts" is 'Kindergarten Arguing'.

...

"A key factor in a friendly relationship is to be able to tell your friend "no" without him/her getting angry. If one of the people in a relationship is forced to be subservient at all times we normally call it an abusive relationship."

This is a glib conflation of pop culture relationship psychology, with realpolitik nature of geopolitical relations.

...

"And I think you kinda missed the point: Danish politicians have done everything in their power to please the US"

I think you 'missed the point' by making broad, fabricated assumptions about a) what exactly Danish politicians are doing, b) the benefits received on either side and c) the materiality of the requests made by the US.

You don't know what was asked for and received from either side, nor the benefits to either party.

...

'Adult Argumentation' is the recognition of the material facts of the situation, of which there are many including the fact that Denmark is small and relatively weak, does not have the scale to work on a lot of defence and intelligence initiatives, it has to partner with 'good neighbours' on a variety of issues, and that Denmark deploys intelligence capabilities, including spying, like every other state.

If Denmark is a 'lapdog' of any state, it's by far and away the lapdog of Germany which de-facto dictates monetary policy (Kroner is issued by DK but is pegged i.e. controlled by ECB), EU level migration, unilaterally makes dumb energy deals with the Russians giving them tremendous leverage and putting everyone at risk, to the point where once again, ironically, the Americans, literally as we speak are having to step in to protect all of you, almost 80 years after WW2 ended. And so many other things.

Thankfully, Danish and other European politicians have developed good relations with the US such that US support on issues such as Ukraine and Russian expansion are going to be well mitigated.

To put that in context, the US is providing a huge layer of security for Denmark, in exchange for what, exactly? For helping the US track down a corrupt politician using surveillance? Seems like a pretty good deal. Who is who's lapdog now?

[luser007]

This is quite silly. On oh so many levels. Your rant about Denmark being the lapdog of EU (and by extension Germany) is hilarious. You might not know it, but there has actually been a number of referendums in Denmark on our association with EU (1972, 1986, 1992, 1993, 2014, 2015).

I don't recall any referendums on the NSA cooperation.

...

On one point you're very right, though: I don't know the details of the deal made between the Danish defence intelligence agency and NSA. I sure would love to (the same goes for the Danish public), so please let me in on the details!

...

You seem unwilling to accept, that the actions performed by politicians is not always in the interest of the people they're supposed to serve. This is quite weird. An US analogy would be, that it is obvious that Pelosi or Trump are more concerned about their private fortunes than the interest of the American public.

And as I said: If the Danish politicians thought this cooperation to be in the best interest of the Danes, they could announce it publicly. "We let NSA tap our data, because they in return sometimes provides tips to us on homegrown terrorists and threats to Danish interests in the Middle-East". It is strange that it is not even possible for them to acknowledge the existence of an agreement. Why all this cloak and dagger when it is so obviously a great benefit for the country as you make it out to be?