16 ms·

I’m a Danish citizen. The story doesn’t really surprise me (given the news a few years back that US spy on EU MPs in Brussels by eavesdropping Belgian telcos).

I’m a Danish citizen. The story doesn’t really surprise me (given the news a few years back that US spy on EU MPs in Brussels by eavesdropping Belgian telcos). The worst part is the complete apathy from Danish politicians to stand up against this kind of spying and take action. It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted; yet none of the centrist parties are interested in or motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities.

msh 6y ago
I am also danish, I would guess a large part is that we have no alternative to the US as a defence partner. If for example russia wanted greenland, I dont feel confident that any other of our allies would put soldiers on the ground to defend it.
- guest3456789 6y ago
  Not trying to being sceptic here, but before and after seeing the latest Greenland movie, I think USA owns already Greenland de facto for all practical purposes. Denmark just has it on paper and pays the costs. If Russia wanted to take Greenland (why?), then USA will fight of course because it is already theirs.
  - ochrist 6y ago
    I don't agree with this, and neither does the Greenland Home Rule: https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en USA has a base to the very north east of Greenland (Thule Air Base), but most of the workforce there is people from Denmark and Greenland. They used to have other bases (e.g. Sonderstrom), but are currently primarily based on Thule. However, after the POTUS offer on buying Greenland, USA is now (re)opening a consulate there. Source: I'm Danish and have worked at Thule Air Base several years ago.
mkroman 6y ago
Don't forget the constant illegal logging that the government imposes on the ISPs[1], which for some reason, they comply to. [1]: https://ulovliglogning.dk/en/ https://ulovliglogning.dk/en/
thefounder 6y ago
>> motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities. They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Here you have it, it's no secret: Denmark opposes the creation of a "European army" to defend the E.U. from threats, Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said Friday. Speaking at the meeting of Denmark's 2019-2020 foreign and security policy, he said: "There is no such thing as Denmark will defend itself against the U.S. The U.S. is the cornerstone of our freedom." German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  > Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe. They took Crimea back and sabotaged Ukraine because strategically they can't afford to have yet another NATO country right at their doorstep. They're not going to invade Poland any time soon (what for anyway?). They're not crazy nor blood thirsty. This is the same with North Korea: their actions make perfect sense once you look past our propaganda.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    If you look past the propaganda, basically there are a bunch of countries in the world. One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. So if you look at America's record for foreign 'Peacekeeping' it seems prudent to keep a sizeable army on hand to defend against the Russians. Places with strong armies invade places that aren't protected by strong armies.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. Historically, not every country did it "as much as America does", and not globally. Both because of differences in culture, and because of differences in role and capacity.
throwaway4good 6y ago
Yet we hapilly break the rules of self-governance to prevent Huawei from winning contracts on the Faeroe islands.
guest3456780 6y ago
The main issue for EU with regard to NSA/USA, is that NSA makes no difference on data collection and USA government makes no difference in intelligence use. NSA collects all data they can and USA government uses that to maximize USA interests, no matter if it is terrorism or industrial espionage and information sharing with their US national businesses against EU. Unlike USA, EU has nothing that organized in place to match that threat.
lenkite 6y ago
Please let the EU develop its own standing military force independent of NATO and US. It's truly about time this happened. We need a third counterpart to China and the USA.
- nix23 6y ago
  No please, i don't want a big German directed army again. But something like NATO but just for Europa..that would be a good idea.
  - oblio 6y ago
    Times have changed. A big German army isn't the thing anyone in 2020 worries anymore. The last times they worried, Germany was 10% of the world economy and growing fast and Europe itself was probably 50% of the world economy (probably more considering all the territories). Now Germany is something like 3% and Europe is at 20% and going down.
    - nix23 6y ago
      >A big German army isn't the thing anyone in 2020 worries anymore. A really? https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article210474071/Waffen-Sprengstoff-und-Nazi-Literatur-bei-KSK-Soldat-in-Sachsen-gefunden.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article210474071/Waf... Would you be happy if DEVGRU/Sealteam6..whatever they call them now, consist of KKK Members? >Germany is something like 3% and Europe is at 20% and going down. That 3% cannot be true, Germany is at least 1/3 the European economy, and you know since i live in Europe...i worry about Germany.
      - disgu 6y ago
        So which country would you want to take the lead. Or phrased differently: Which country's army do you think doesn't have far right people in it?
        nix23 6y ago
mrweasel 6y ago
What I don't get is why the US doesn't just ask the questions they would like to have answered. In most cases our politicians would pretty much just tell them what they need to know. In the case of the F35 it especially make no sense, AT ALL. The selection process for a new fighter jet was so heavily skewed in favor of the F35 that other manufacturers didn't even want to bid. At no point did anyone seriously believe that any other plane was even an option. It's my belief that letting the NSA do their spying is a move done to ensure that our own politicians cannot be held responsible for informing the US about internal affairs. As you say, they show a complete apathy towards the situation. The current generation of politicians has an unhealthy positive view of surveillance in general, while attempting to keep the press and public out from anything they deem to be "confidential government decisions".
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > What I don't get is why the US doesn't just ask the questions they would like to have answered. In most cases our politicians would pretty much just tell them what they need to know. I imagine part of the mission is counter-intelligence. Verifying Danish negotiators aren't leaking sensitive information to e.g. Russia or China. In those cases, the NSA is probing for information the politicians do not have.
Ntrails 6y ago
I'm not sure precisely when we decided that intelligence gathering wasn't a part of all diplomatic relations? I expect my government to be spying on everyone to some degree or other, friend or foe. I have to assume the same is therefore being done to us. The US simply has more money and more resources allocated to doing so.
- lagadu 6y ago
  No, I don't expect allies to spy on each other.
- Shacklz 6y ago
  That just seems so... wrong. Why can't we just talk and discuss with each other like normal human beings? Why do we have to result to all this deceiving, tricking, spying each other? Why can't we just act... nice? Guess I'm just too naive for this world.
  - f1refly 6y ago
    Because we're not talking about human beings. We're talking about huge, huge collectives of humans that are impossible to trust or predict. Think of states like you do of corproations: You wouldn't trust a corporation to do "the right thing" or "act nice", wouldn't you? Now image the corporation has nukes and tanks and lives next to your back door. We have a saying: "Trust is nice, surveillance is better" (which is used in different context but applies very nicely for this situation).
somesortofsystm 6y ago
It factually doesn't matter which citizenship one holds. An under-utilized protest mechanism exists in the fact that citizenships can change. Most modern republics allow for this. >It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted It cannot happen until and unless citizens inform themselves, and most of all: strive to remain informed.
smeeth 6y ago
I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I’d like you to at least consider the possibility that spying between both allies increases peace and diplomatic cooperation. The outcome of spying is that we know what our allies are going to do. If our intelligence verifies something our allies told us already, this process fosters trust and better relations. If our intelligence uncovers lies, we have forewarning and are not caught completely off guard. I like both outcomes, though I can see how being spied on would feel bad. I suspect governments have come to much the same conclusion, because it seems tolerated that pretty much every embassy on earth is 50% spies. Yes, even european embassies in the US. In fact, opening new embassies in allied countries and increasing the number of staff in them is seen as a mark of friendship.

msh 6y ago

I am also danish, I would guess a large part is that we have no alternative to the US as a defence partner. If for example russia wanted greenland, I dont feel confident that any other of our allies would put soldiers on the ground to defend it.

guest3456789 6y ago
Not trying to being sceptic here, but before and after seeing the latest Greenland movie, I think USA owns already Greenland de facto for all practical purposes. Denmark just has it on paper and pays the costs. If Russia wanted to take Greenland (why?), then USA will fight of course because it is already theirs.
- ochrist 6y ago
  I don't agree with this, and neither does the Greenland Home Rule: https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en USA has a base to the very north east of Greenland (Thule Air Base), but most of the workforce there is people from Denmark and Greenland. They used to have other bases (e.g. Sonderstrom), but are currently primarily based on Thule. However, after the POTUS offer on buying Greenland, USA is now (re)opening a consulate there. Source: I'm Danish and have worked at Thule Air Base several years ago.

mkroman 6y ago

Don't forget the constant illegal logging that the government imposes on the ISPs[1], which for some reason, they comply to. [1]: https://ulovliglogning.dk/en/ https://ulovliglogning.dk/en/

thefounder 6y ago

>> motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities. They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Here you have it, it's no secret: Denmark opposes the creation of a "European army" to defend the E.U. from threats, Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said Friday. Speaking at the meeting of Denmark's 2019-2020 foreign and security policy, he said: "There is no such thing as Denmark will defend itself against the U.S. The U.S. is the cornerstone of our freedom." German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.

jmnicolas 6y ago
> Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe. They took Crimea back and sabotaged Ukraine because strategically they can't afford to have yet another NATO country right at their doorstep. They're not going to invade Poland any time soon (what for anyway?). They're not crazy nor blood thirsty. This is the same with North Korea: their actions make perfect sense once you look past our propaganda.
- roenxi 6y ago
  If you look past the propaganda, basically there are a bunch of countries in the world. One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. So if you look at America's record for foreign 'Peacekeeping' it seems prudent to keep a sizeable army on hand to defend against the Russians. Places with strong armies invade places that aren't protected by strong armies.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >One would assume that Russia/North Korea/China/the UK/Kazakhstan/Somalia etc want to invade other places about as much as America does. Historically, not every country did it "as much as America does", and not globally. Both because of differences in culture, and because of differences in role and capacity.

throwaway4good 6y ago

Yet we hapilly break the rules of self-governance to prevent Huawei from winning contracts on the Faeroe islands.

guest3456780 6y ago

The main issue for EU with regard to NSA/USA, is that NSA makes no difference on data collection and USA government makes no difference in intelligence use. NSA collects all data they can and USA government uses that to maximize USA interests, no matter if it is terrorism or industrial espionage and information sharing with their US national businesses against EU. Unlike USA, EU has nothing that organized in place to match that threat.

lenkite 6y ago

Please let the EU develop its own standing military force independent of NATO and US. It's truly about time this happened. We need a third counterpart to China and the USA.

nix23 6y ago
No please, i don't want a big German directed army again. But something like NATO but just for Europa..that would be a good idea.
- oblio 6y ago
  Times have changed. A big German army isn't the thing anyone in 2020 worries anymore. The last times they worried, Germany was 10% of the world economy and growing fast and Europe itself was probably 50% of the world economy (probably more considering all the territories). Now Germany is something like 3% and Europe is at 20% and going down.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >A big German army isn't the thing anyone in 2020 worries anymore. A really? https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article210474071/Waffen-Sprengstoff-und-Nazi-Literatur-bei-KSK-Soldat-in-Sachsen-gefunden.html https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article210474071/Waf... Would you be happy if DEVGRU/Sealteam6..whatever they call them now, consist of KKK Members? >Germany is something like 3% and Europe is at 20% and going down. That 3% cannot be true, Germany is at least 1/3 the European economy, and you know since i live in Europe...i worry about Germany.
    - disgu 6y ago
      So which country would you want to take the lead. Or phrased differently: Which country's army do you think doesn't have far right people in it?
      - nix23 6y ago

mrweasel 6y ago

What I don't get is why the US doesn't just ask the questions they would like to have answered. In most cases our politicians would pretty much just tell them what they need to know. In the case of the F35 it especially make no sense, AT ALL. The selection process for a new fighter jet was so heavily skewed in favor of the F35 that other manufacturers didn't even want to bid. At no point did anyone seriously believe that any other plane was even an option. It's my belief that letting the NSA do their spying is a move done to ensure that our own politicians cannot be held responsible for informing the US about internal affairs. As you say, they show a complete apathy towards the situation. The current generation of politicians has an unhealthy positive view of surveillance in general, while attempting to keep the press and public out from anything they deem to be "confidential government decisions".

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> What I don't get is why the US doesn't just ask the questions they would like to have answered. In most cases our politicians would pretty much just tell them what they need to know. I imagine part of the mission is counter-intelligence. Verifying Danish negotiators aren't leaking sensitive information to e.g. Russia or China. In those cases, the NSA is probing for information the politicians do not have.

Ntrails 6y ago

I'm not sure precisely when we decided that intelligence gathering wasn't a part of all diplomatic relations? I expect my government to be spying on everyone to some degree or other, friend or foe. I have to assume the same is therefore being done to us. The US simply has more money and more resources allocated to doing so.

lagadu 6y ago
No, I don't expect allies to spy on each other.
Shacklz 6y ago
That just seems so... wrong. Why can't we just talk and discuss with each other like normal human beings? Why do we have to result to all this deceiving, tricking, spying each other? Why can't we just act... nice? Guess I'm just too naive for this world.
- f1refly 6y ago
  Because we're not talking about human beings. We're talking about huge, huge collectives of humans that are impossible to trust or predict. Think of states like you do of corproations: You wouldn't trust a corporation to do "the right thing" or "act nice", wouldn't you? Now image the corporation has nukes and tanks and lives next to your back door. We have a saying: "Trust is nice, surveillance is better" (which is used in different context but applies very nicely for this situation).

somesortofsystm 6y ago

It factually doesn't matter which citizenship one holds. An under-utilized protest mechanism exists in the fact that citizenships can change. Most modern republics allow for this. >It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted It cannot happen until and unless citizens inform themselves, and most of all: strive to remain informed.

smeeth 6y ago

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I’d like you to at least consider the possibility that spying between both allies increases peace and diplomatic cooperation. The outcome of spying is that we know what our allies are going to do. If our intelligence verifies something our allies told us already, this process fosters trust and better relations. If our intelligence uncovers lies, we have forewarning and are not caught completely off guard. I like both outcomes, though I can see how being spied on would feel bad. I suspect governments have come to much the same conclusion, because it seems tolerated that pretty much every embassy on earth is 50% spies. Yes, even european embassies in the US. In fact, opening new embassies in allied countries and increasing the number of staff in them is seen as a mark of friendship.