Transcription
The dictators are profiting from our disunityity. That's why I'm speaking about creating an alliance of democracies. If we take all the world's democracies together, including the US, then we represent 60% of the global economy.
This is today's battlegrounds. Our discussions with leaders from around the world consider how history produced the present and how we can work together to overcome obstacles to progress, seize opportunities, and build a better tomorrow. On this episode of Today's Battlegrounds, our focus is on Denmark. Our guest is Andrew Fo Rasperson who served as prime minister of Denmark from 2001 to 2009 and as the 12th Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO from 2009 to 2014. Rasmusen became Denmark's youngest member of parliament at age 25 and he was named Minister of Economic Affairs in 1990. In June 2022, Ukrainian President Voldemir Zalinski asked Rasmusen to co-chair an international task force on security guarantees for Ukraine. The resulting key of security compact became the basis for a web of security guarantees negotiated between Ukraine and NATO allies that was formalized in a new Ukraine compact at the 2024 NATO summit in Washington.
Denmark's history reflects its position at the crossroads of European power politics and maritime trade. The Danish Kingdom emerged in the early medieval period and during the Viking age projected influence across the North Atlantic and into the British Isles. In the late 14th century, Denmark became a composite monarchy that included Norway and territories in the North Atlantic. But military defeats in the following centuries reduced its territory. Denmark established itself as a constitutional monarchy in 1849. During World War II, Denmark maintained neutrality until Nazi Germany occupied the country in 1940. Denmark became a founding member of NATO in 1949.
Denmark established colonial control over Greenland in the early 18th century and gradually integrated the territory into the Danish state. In 1941, during Nazi Germany's occupation of Denmark, Denmark signed an agreement granting the United States responsibility for Greenland's defense. That agreement began a permanent US presence on the island, which was formalized in 1951 and enabled the construction of Tuli Air Base, now called P2 Space Base, which became a central node in missile warning and space surveillance during the Cold War. The 2009 self-governance act expanded Greenland's autonomy and affirmed the right of its people to determine their future. As concerns about missile defense and Russian and Chinese encroachment in the Arctic grow, Greenland is even more important to European and North American security. In 2025 and 2026, the Trump administration's expressed interest in acquiring Greenland created friction with Denmark and raised questions about US respect for sovereignty within an alliance built on trust. Denmark has made clear its position that any decision on Greenland's future rests with its people.
We welcome Secretary General Rasmusen back to today's battlegrounds to discuss international security, the prospects for the US Danish relationship, and the health of the NATO and transatlantic relationship as wars continue in Ukraine and the Middle East. Prime Minister Andrew Fo Rasmusen, welcome back to today's Battlegrounds. Thank you for making time uh for me and and for our international audience. Great to see you.
Thank you for having me once again. There is a lot to discuss. There certainly is. You've been deeply involved uh in supporting Ukraine uh in in its defense against the the Russian aggression there especially since the massive reinvasion of Ukraine which occurred right after we talked the last time. And you recently chaired uh co-chared the task force that led to the KEF Security Compact uh in 2024. You've argued for ironclad guarantees uh for security as a way uh to at least bring this war to a at least a temporary end of the fight to a temporary end and work on a a longer term solution that restores Ukrainian sovereignty. But I'd just love to to hear your assessment uh of the war in Ukraine and what you think the prospects are for restoring peace in Europe.
The prospects are quite bleak because of our hesitation actually to to help uh Ukraine doing what is necessary. And I find it quite embarrassing uh that the western community that the transatlantic community as such uh is not able to push back against uh the Russian aggression. The fact is the following. As long as President Putin believes that he can win on the battlefield, he has no incentive whatsoever to engage constructively in a peace process. So the road to peace uh goes through a rearmament of Ukraine. It goes through uh increased economic pressure uh on Russia. We have to change Putin's calculus through increased pressure militarily and economically on Russia.
Yeah, you know, I couldn't agree with you more. I I think what provokes Putin is the perception of weakness. And not only does he think he can maybe make continue to make these gains on the battlefield, which he's paying I think a unsustainably high cost for uh but also he's waging a broader shadow war uh against Europe and blowing up rail lines and warehouses uh you know putting out uh assassination contracts on on uh on European business leaders, cutting undersea cables, aa sustained campaign of of political subversion. Could you share with our viewers your your perspective on on European security? I mean, how serious is the threat uh to to to broader European security?
It is uh European security at large uh that is at stake. If Putin gets any success in Ukraine, he won't stop in Ukraine. he will continue uh he's already present with uh a Russian occupation of a part of Muldova in Transnistria. Uh he's present in Georgia where he occupied uh Aasacasia and south of Gita some years ago. Uh and uh I wouldn't exclude the possibility that he would put pressure uh on the three uh Baltic states. Uh it may not be a direct attack because they are members of NATO and that might uh provoke an activation of the famous uh NATO article 5. Uh but he can uh launch other kinds of pressures in particular on Lithuania uh because Lithuania today uh hosts a transit link from mother Russia to the Russian enclave. um uh Khalinrad. Uh so it is about European security. If Putin gets success in Ukraine, he will continue and by the end of this decade, he's able to uh attack uh even a NATO ally in Europe.
You know, Prime Minister, and I think his ambitions are are are quite high despite really the his his destruction of his own economy uh taking over a million casualties, dead and and severely wounded uh in Ukraine. But I think what he's hoping for is to break Europe apart, break up the EU, break up the NATO alliance, ren the transatlantic relationship, uh to to pursue that effort. He's engaged in a sustained campaign of political subversion, support for extreme parties on the far left and the far right. But could you give maybe um give your assessment of how successful he's being? What's your assessment of politics in Europe? We're talking, you know, just after the election in in Hungary where the opposition candidate handily defeated Victor Orban, who has been really, I would just say, uh, you know, an advocate for Putin uh in uh and and almost a puppet for Putin uh in Europe. Uh, so that that seems to bode well. But what is your overall assessment of politics in in Europe and and in relation to what what Putin would like to achieve, you know, which is to rend uh these relationships within the EU, within NATO and the transatlantic relationship?
Or uh Putin has got some success, but you're quite right that uh the recent elections uh in Hungary is a setback uh for Putin. because he has now lost a a good friend uh in in in Hungary. But if you look at other European countries, he has had some subset at least he has some supporters uh in other European countries. Take France as an example whereas Ras National Marin Le Pens party uh is uh running high in the opinion polls before uh the presidential election uh next year and they are more pro-Russian and anti- Ukraine uh than the current French government. Take uh the UK uh where uh Farage, leader of the UK reform party is running high uh in the opinion polls. He is also more pro-Russian anti- Ukraine uh than the current government. Take Germany uh where you have seen a rise in the support for uh alternative fodand which is clearly pro uh Russian. So in a few years time you may be in a situation where the three biggest European countries are under heavy influence uh from political forces supporting Putin. So in that respect he has had some success.
So, so Prime Minister, what is your prescription for that? I mean, what can what can European leaders do? You know, how how do you how do you convince your citizens uh that Russia is being successful in dividing your societies and pitting people against each other uh infringing on your sovereignty? uh what more can be done uh to counter this dynamic which has its roots I think in in anger over over migration anger over economic issues uh what's what do you recommend?
So you're right this is not just about our relationship uh or our appro with Russia or our approach to uh Russia it's much broader right in pointing to immigration as an example Uh so uh my clear answer to your question is we need stronger European leadership and we need to address the real concerns of ordinary people including uh when it comes to uh illegal uh immigration. We need tougher a tougher approach uh to countering illegal immigration uh to Europe. But we also need a clear leadership when it comes to telling the European uh people that we cannot continue to rely on an outdated societal model in which we have relied on a combination of cheap energy from Russia, cheap goods from China, and cheap security from the United States. We have to be able to stand on our own feet.
Pro that's there that's that's a really strong prescription. You know, of course, you know, the the NATO and and the EU came out at the lessons of of the two destructive world wars of the of the 20th century and and you have been at the forefront of NATO leadership as Secretary General, but even before that, Prime Minister, I mean, you came to the aid of the United States after the mass murder attacks of of 9/11. uh as a prime minister of Denmark and your forces, you know, I've fought alongside them. Uh they fought with great distinction. You had a a very capable, courageous battle group in Helman Province and and Denmark took more casualties per capita than any other NATO nation uh in in defense, I would say, of of all civilized people in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda uh in in Afghanistan. Lately, the the transatlantic relationship, NATO has come under duress in part because of President Trump's persistent deep skepticism of of the alliance and I would say what I would call, you know, gratuitous insults uh to European leaders, whether it's the support for Orban most recently, uh the the Davos speech in which he strung together a number of grievances and insults uh and then and then insulting those who did come to the aid of the United States. Uh Denmark directly with the threat to to uh uh to to invade uh Greenland. I mean, it's been a really rocky road uh in terms of the transatlantic relationship and I think this has put great greater strain on NATO. Could you just offer what what is your assessment? We just had Secretary General Rut visit here in in in Washington. Uh his his you statement was not that reassuring. you know, we haven't seen a rending of of the alliance, but what's your assessment of what can we do uh to maybe reverse this trend uh of of erosion of trust and and and tension and uh and lack of confidence uh in the alliance.
I think to speak very honestly about it uh that the best instrument to restore confidence uh and trust would be if the American administration would repeat exactly the words you used. I thank you very much uh for your comments uh on the Danish uh troops uh efforts uh alongside uh American and British troops uh in uh in Afghanistan and by the way also in Iraq. Um, uh, I can tell you that Denmark used to be, I think, one of the most pro- American countries in Europe.
And >> no, the p the polls the polls showed that. Absolutely. Yes. >> Yes. And recently, a new poll showed that the mood has changed. Now 60% of the Danish people considers the US an adversary. For me that's a very painful development. Uh since childhood uh I have admired the United States. I have considered the United States a natural leader of the free world. And as prime minister I work closely uh with uh President George W. Bush. As NATO secretary general I worked closely with President Obama. Irrespective of party affiliation, they strongly believed in American global leadership. I hope to see the United States return uh to that uh clear position. Having said all that, I still consider NATO the cornerstone of European and North Atlantic security. But we have to reform NATO. We we have to give NATO a stronger European face and uh the first step was taken at the last NATO summit where all NATO allies committed to reaching the goal of investing at least 5% of GDP in defense. That was an important step. But we also need stronger commitment from in particular European uh allies to invest uh uh to develop the a European defense industry so that we are able to stand on our own feet.
You know, I'll tell I'll tell you, Prime Minister, I think, you know, there is an opportunity here because President Trump, even if he did it in in a way that could be um could diminish confidence in the alliance, he did get that commitment now. And and I get a sense that he's almost fighting a rear guard against phantoms because he got really what what he wanted, which is greater responsibility sharing in defense, uh, for example. So, I'm hoping things can improve, but now we're seeing uh Prime Minister, we're seeing this, you know, this uh additional strain on the alliance based on on the war in in the Middle East uh and President Trump of course really not bringing any of our European allies along with us before the war, then asking for assistance, then insulting European allies again. So, I think this is this war has put another strain on NATO and the transatlantic relationship. Can you maybe just share with our viewers the view of the war in the Middle East from the perspective of of Europe and and uh and and what you see the implications of that war and I'm talking about obviously the war centered on on Iran but the broader conflict that involves Israeli actions for example against Hezbollah in in Lebanon uh and and the Iran's you know broader use of proxies across the region.
Of all I shed no tears by the decapitation of the Iranian leadership. Uh on the contrary I I I share the view uh that uh we need uh regime change uh in Iran uh to stabilize uh the whole uh the whole region. But um uh I would say the way this war was started and has been conducted has uh exposed uh President Trump to what I would say self-inflicted problems and wounds because uh you cannot expect NATO allies to come and clean up your mess if you do not engage your NATO to allies right from the beginning. If President Trump had wanted this to become a NATO operation, then he would have followed the traditional procedure in NATO. We have a meeting in the NATO council. We decided uh by unanimity to launch a war or whatever it might be and then we are in this together in solidarity. But you cannot launch a war on your own and then expect your allies just to come and clean up the mess afterwards. So um obviously I share the view that it's of utmost importance to open up uh the homos uh straight. I also think that European allies should do what they can uh to help uh in that uh respect. But my plea would be that the American administration uh respects the rules in an alliance as NATO.
You know, it's it's an important outcome that you just mentioned because I do think that there is not going to be a really sustained peace in in the Middle East until there is a just a a fundamental shift in the nature of the Iranian government such that it ceases what we have seen as a permanent hostility uh to the United States, Israel, its Arab neighbors, Europe, you know, the the West uh broadly. And I think that highlights that this is a war that we maybe we could maybe you could help our viewers understand the context for it. this I see Iran as part of a broader axis of aggressors. You've already mentioned kind of the economic competition with China, for example, China's, you know, dumping of of goods in in uh in Europe. Uh we've touched a little bit we we talked about the uh you know the the Greenland sort of strains uh that self-inflicted I think by the Trump administration, but of course that that's based in in Arctic security. Um the the conflict in the Middle East highlights the importance of of economic security and you already mentioned our industrial base, our defense industrial base. We have a lot of work to do on the vulnerability of supply chains. So what overall do you think is at stake at this moment and and um and how does that highlight the importance of working together not only within Europe but between Europe, the United States, Canada, other allies and like-minded partners?
Fully agree with you. Uh we are confronted with an axis of aggressors. Uh Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, uh you could mention other uh aggressors as well and they are increasingly working together. We have seen how North Korea and Iran directly have helped Russia against uh Ukraine. So I think our conclusion should be that the world's democracies should work closer together. Unfortunately, seen from my perspective, the United States has withdrawn from the leadership of the free world. So I have suggested to create what I call democracy 7 D7 com consisting of the uh the European Union, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea. D7, not G7, but D7, that could be a corner. Uh and if those democratic countries work closer together, agree on free trade agreements, uh investment agreements, uh react collectively if we are exposed to economic coercion, be it from Begging or for that sake uh from uh the United States, um we could uh secure for uh the supply chain of critical minerals etc etc. Uh the T7 could be the core around which we could include other countries and I would warmly welcome the United States into this club of an alliance of democracies uh once the United States uh wants to resume its natural place as the leader of the free world. But when the leader of the free world is on retirement, others will have to take over. And that's why I suggest to create a D7.
You know, Prime Minister, I think this could have a positive impact as well as uh just convincing which I don't think I think the vast majority of Americans already understand the importance of of multinational cooperation, especially with our allies and partners in in Europe and as you mentioned AC across the free world. Because our agenda should be common you know it's in terms of supply chain resilience invigorating our invigorating our industrial base energy security especially in relation to uh to to AI and the compute power and energy demands associated with that and and the economic promise uh for for that and as well as uh as as national security international security uh the need to address you know what has been underinvestment uh in defense modernization defense capacity Arctic security missile defense, drone defense. I mean, hey, it it sounds like a common agenda to me. So, could you lay out what is your optimistic vision for this? How do we get over uh you know, the tensions and I think you know, kind of the what I would say the self-defeating behavior uh that that we've seen uh in in recent years and and months.
Look, basically I I I see some positives uh of obviously it was negative uh when President Trump uh declared the liberation day on the 2nd of April uh last year uh exposing uh friends and foes alike to high tariffs to declare a trade war against the whole world doesn't make sense. There are no winners in a trade war. There are only losers including uh the American uh people. Um but as a consequence of this declaration of a trade war, I have seen progress when it comes to the conclusion of free trade agreements. For instance, um the European Union has uh concluded a free trade agreement with a number of uh countries in Latin America called Meour including Brazil. Um we have concluded u a free trade agreement with India. We have concluded a free trade agreement uh with uh Australia. Uh we have seen how Prime Minister Khani has traveled uh Southeast Asia um to to mobilize uh support for for new uh agreements uh among what he called the middlesized uh countries. So I see some positives namely that provoked by the trade war we have seen how democracies have uh agreed on a number of free trade arrangements to demonstrate to China to the United States that free markets still pay.
Well, I'll tell you, Prime Minister, I think that's a great message and I do think we should be more confident. You know, what you mentioned this axis of aggressors. I I think that all of them have overextended. I'd like you to just give your assessment of uh if you don't mind, of Russia, China, you know, obviously Iran, North Korea. From my perspective, they saw they saw Europe, uh the United States, the West broadly as weak, decadent, and divided. And as a result, they all overextended. You know, Russia in Ukraine, Iran with its attacks on Israel, the October 7th horrible attacks, the direct attacks in 2024. Uh China's overextended economically in in my view and the race to surpass us. So what what is your assessment of the broader geostrategic competition? I think, you know, we should be more confident uh in in our future uh and recognize some of these self-inflicted weaknesses uh by the axis of aggressors.
I couldn't agree more. Uh as I mentioned earlier, I I find it embarrassing that we are not able to push back against the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Let's think about it. the size of the Russian economy is equivalent to Italy. Italy in Europe at all. Um, so I think the only reason why Putin has some success in acting as a regional spoiler is our divisions in uh Europe and trying across uh the Atlantic. If we act together, then we represent a formidable force um that can push back against aggression from Russia, from China, from Iran, from elsewhere. The the dictators are profiting from our disunityity. That's why I'm speaking about creating an alliance of democracies. If we take all the world's democracies together, including the US, then we represent 60% of the global economy. I mean, if if we could work together instead of fighting each other, if we could work together, then we could easily handle the dictators uh of of the world. So that's what I'm encouraging the the American administration to resume its natural place as a leader of the free world.
Well, at the Hoover Institution and on today's battlegrounds, we will do everything we can to amplify your voice. I consider you, you know, one of the the greatest statesmen, you know, in the world today. I I can't thank you enough uh for joining us. I'd like to give you just one final word. One final word for our our audience.
Since I was child, I have admired the United States and consider the United States a natural leader of the free world. Uh, and to that end, to make the United States great, you need friends, you need partners, you need allies. And one thing is for sure, you cannot make America great by threatening allies uh to grasp their land by force. On the contrary, we need to work together to raise our voice to strengthen our efforts against the advancing autocracies.
Well, Prime Minister Anders Fo Rasmusen, I cannot thank you enough for joining us uh on today's battlegrounds and uh and I wish you the best as you continue uh to to send a positive message not only you know to to Europe but uh but across across the free world. Thank you for joining us. Much for having me and thank you for your efforts to amplify uh the words on the need for strengthened uh cooperation among the world's democracies.
Thank you, Prime Minister.
Battlegrounds is a production of the Hoover Institution where we generate and promote ideas advancing freedom. For more information about our work, to hear more of our podcasts, or view our video content, please visit hoover.org.