Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / How a Tiny State can Influence European Energy Politics

Transcript

How a Tiny State can Influence European Energy Politics · Diplomacy and International Relations

0:00
So imagine a country with a population that's roughly the
0:03
size of the Houston metro area. Right, which is pretty small in
0:06
the grand scheme of things. Exactly.
0:08
But now imagine that same tiny country basically dictating the
0:12
energy grid for an entire continent of like 450 million
0:16
people. Yeah, on paper it sounds
0:18
completely absurd. It really does.
0:19
I mean, usually when we talk about international relations
0:22
or, you know, global influence, we rely on this very comforting,
0:26
very predictable kind of mathematical logic.
0:29
Like geopolitics, politics has its own laws of physics or
0:31
something. Right.
0:32
You measure a country's total landmass, you count their active
0:35
aircraft carriers, you calculate their GDP, and the equation just
0:40
smits out their exact level of power on the global stage.
0:44
Big countries have loud voices and small countries are just
0:46
expected to sit quietly and take notes.
0:49
Exactly. It's a framework that political
0:51
scientists find, I don't know, incredibly reassuring, I guess.
0:53
Oh, absolutely. We love to categorize the world
0:56
into, you know, DG7 superpowers, emerging markets.
1:00
It creates this very neat visible hierarchy.
1:03
But the moment you start examining the actual reality of
1:07
European politics, and specifically the foreign policy
1:10
of Denmark, that entire mathematical equation completely
1:14
shatters. It falls apart at the seams.
1:15
It really does and that is exactly what we are unpacking
1:18
today. So welcome to diplomacy and
1:20
international relations. I am thrilled you are joining us
1:24
for this deep dive. It's.
1:24
Going to be a fascinating 1. Before we get into the mechanics
1:27
of how a state this small wheels like this much power, I want to
1:33
quickly encourage you, the listener, to follow and
1:36
subscribe wherever you get your audio.
1:37
Yes, please do. And a quick note, you can also
1:40
subscribe to our deep dives on Patreon.
1:42
That directly helps keep the lights on here, but it also
1:45
gains you access to a ton of extra content.
1:47
Which is really valuable if you're into this stuff.
1:50
Totally including exclusive weekly and monthly briefings
1:53
specifically focused on the internal Gears of Danish
1:56
politics. The link for that is right down
1:58
in the description. And I highly recommend checking
2:01
out those briefings if today's topic catches your interest,
2:03
because honestly, you absolutely cannot understand Copenhagen's
2:07
external global moves without understanding the precise
2:11
internal pressures of their domestic politics.
2:14
Right, the two are completely intertwined.
2:16
Exactly. You can't separate them which.
2:17
Brings us to the core mission of today's deep dive.
2:21
We are going to decode the highly unique, incredibly
2:25
pragmatic and frankly, aggressively ambitious foreign
2:28
policy and climate diplomacy of Denmark.
2:30
Yeah, aggressive is definitely the right word there.
2:32
Right. We're talking about a nation of
2:34
fewer than 6 million people that is actively shaping European
2:38
energy highways, brokering these massive international climate
2:42
treaties, and completely redefining how global
2:45
development aid is deployed. As a tool for national security,
2:49
no less. Which is wild.
2:50
So to answer how they pull this off, we have to look past the
2:54
surface level press releases, right?
2:56
We're going to isolate the underlying DNA of Danish
2:58
international relations by synthesizing decades of
3:01
strategic evolution. We'll be looking at historical
3:03
analysis of their 1960s trade maneuvers within the European
3:07
Free Trade Association, examining the highly tactical,
3:11
bureaucratic strategies they deploy during their EU
3:14
presidencies. And dissecting modern strategic
3:17
documents like their global development framework, The World
3:20
we Share. Right.
3:21
And we'll also dig into the engineering and geopolitical
3:24
implications of their massive new offshore energy islands.
3:28
Because when you line all of this up from like post war
3:31
agricultural trade to modern climate tech, a very deliberate,
3:36
very roof pattern of statecraft emerges.
3:39
Remarkably consistent. So to understand the offshore
3:42
wind farms and the climate treaties of today, we actually
3:44
have to rewind the clock. We need to go back to the 1960s.
3:47
Completely pivotal era for European integration.
3:50
Yeah, the continent was essentially split into two
3:52
competing economic blocs. You had the European Free Trade
3:55
Association, or EFTA, which was led by the UK, and you had the
3:59
emerging European Economic Community, the EEC, which was
4:03
driven heavily by France and West Germany.
4:05
And if you look at the archival records and the internal
4:08
diplomatic memos from this formative period, they reveal
4:11
something really crucial about the Danish mindset.
4:14
Which was what exactly? Well, when Denmark engaged in
4:17
these early European integration talks, their primary goal was
4:21
not some lofty ideological dream of a unified European utopia.
4:27
They weren't sitting around a campfire singing about a
4:29
continent Without Borders. Not at all.
4:31
I mean, they were not quoting Poppetry in Brussels.
4:34
Their approach was brutally pragmatic.
4:36
It was entirely about the protection of their massive
4:39
agricultural export sector. Oh, so we are talking about
4:41
butter, bacon and cheese? Exactly.
4:44
Post World War 2, the agricultural question was
4:47
literally the defining issue of Danish domestic politics.
4:51
Their economy was incredibly reliant on exporting farm goods,
4:55
and to protect those vital exports in a rapidly changing
4:58
Europe, the Danish state cultivated a completely new
5:01
breed of civil servant. They became known as the Marx
5:04
diplomater or market diplomats. Market diplomats.
5:07
Just the phrase market diplomat implies a total merging of
5:10
roles, doesn't it? Oh, it was a deliberate
5:13
institutional blurring of the lines.
5:16
Traditional diplomacy, like the kind practice by the British or
5:20
the French, was about grand treaties, territorial borders,
5:23
military alliances. The classic geopolitical stuff.
5:26
Right, but this new Danish diplomacy was entirely about
5:29
market access, supply chains and sector protection.
5:33
So these guys were basically economists in diplomatic suits.
5:37
Yeah, pretty much. These markets diplomaters were
5:40
economically oriented officials who operated right on the
5:43
bleeding edge between domestic economic interests and external
5:47
trade negotiations. Wow.
5:49
They were not aristocrats. They were highly competent,
5:52
deeply pragmatic bureaucrats whose primary directive was
5:55
maintaining flexibility. Because flexibility meant
5:58
survival. Right, exactly.
5:59
And you might be wondering why a small country would be so
6:01
terrified of getting locked into an alliance.
6:03
It's because Denmark was caught in a massive geopolitical vice
6:06
grip at the time. They had a traditional deep
6:09
reliance on the UK as their primary export market for
6:13
agricultural goods. For all that bacon.
6:15
For all the bacon, but they were simultaneously looking at the
6:18
reality of West Germany which was experiencing this explosive
6:22
post war economic miracle. So Germany was becoming an
6:25
absolutely necessary trading partner.
6:27
Precisely, and the UK and West Germany were navigating the
6:30
European integration process on completely divergent paths.
6:34
Right. The UK was deeply skeptical of
6:36
the EE CS supranational ambitions, preferring the looser
6:39
ETM model. What?
6:41
Germany was the economic engine of the EEC, so Denmark was stuck
6:45
right in the middle, heavily reliant on both.
6:47
But instead of just passively waiting to see how the Titans of
6:50
Europe would carve up the market, Danish leadership took
6:53
aggressive initiative, didn't they?
6:55
They did. For example, the Danish Prime
6:57
Minister actively secured a bilateral face to face meeting
7:00
with German Chancellor Conrad Adenauer to guarantee
7:03
agricultural quotas. Wait, really just bypassed
7:06
everyone else? Yeah, you have to understand how
7:08
massive that was at the time. A tiny Scandinavian state
7:12
bypassing the larger block negotiations to secure a direct,
7:15
high level audience with the most powerful leader in
7:18
continental Europe. OK, let's unpack this.
7:20
I want to propose an analogy here.
7:23
Was Denmark basically playing the role of the clever middle
7:27
child? What do you mean?
7:28
Like playing the parents, Britain and Germany against each
7:31
other to protect their own allowance, which in this case
7:34
was an uninterrupted flow of pork and dairy exports.
7:37
That analogy holds up beautifully, actually,
7:39
especially when you examine the Danish press coverage from that
7:42
specific era. Oh, what were they saying?
7:44
The media in Copenhagen was actively and openly discussing
7:48
this urgent need to step out of Britain's shadow.
7:51
The UK was clearly pursuing its own sovereign interests,
7:54
sometimes completely independently of its EFT
7:57
partners. Right, looking out for #1.
7:59
Exactly. The Danish public and their
8:02
Marcus diplomator recognize that if they simply followed London's
8:06
lead blindly, they would become collateral damage in a broader
8:09
European trade war. So their national identity
8:11
didn't stem from being a great military conqueror or having
8:15
some huge global empire, Not at all.
8:17
It was an identity built entirely on being smarter,
8:20
faster, and more technically proficient than everyone else in
8:23
the room. Precisely, they framed their
8:25
geopolitical identity through bureaucratic competence and
8:29
sector oriented diplomacy. We're just better at the
8:32
paperwork. Yeah, it was an identity built
8:34
on the premise that, you know, we are a small state, we cannot
8:37
force anyone to do anything with the Navy, but we can make
8:40
deliberate, highly calculated bureaucratic adjustments to
8:44
secure our economic survival. They realized early on that
8:48
their influence had to come from an almost surgical application
8:51
of economic diplomacy. And that brings us perfectly to
8:54
the present day, because this 1960s blueprint, this strategy
8:59
of using intense bureaucratic competence to protect a primary
9:02
economic export, it didn't disappear when the European
9:06
Union finally matured. It just changed industries.
9:08
Exactly. The tactical machinery is
9:10
identical, but instead of bacon and butter, the new vital export
9:14
is wind turbines and green technology.
9:16
OK, that is a wild pivot, but upgraded feels like an
9:19
understatement when you look at the sheer scale of the numbers
9:21
today. Oh, the numbers are staggering.
9:23
The explosive growth of Denmark's green sector is just
9:27
nuts. By 2019, sustainable energy
9:30
technology accounted for roughly €13 billion in Danish exports.
9:35
Yeah, let's contextualize that. For a country of their size, €13
9:39
billion is a massive chunk of their GDP.
9:43
Right. Imagine if the US suddenly
9:45
started exporting hundreds of billions of dollars worth of a
9:48
single specialized technology. That it completely transforms
9:51
your economy. And the Danish government's
9:53
strategy isn't just to coast on that success.
9:56
They are actively targeting a doubling of that figure, 240
10:00
billion Danish kroner in green exports by 20-30.
10:04
Which is incredibly ambitious. You look at companies like
10:06
Erstad and Vestas, these are no longer just national champions,
10:10
they are the undisputed global heavyweights and offshore wind
10:13
energy. Which leads us directly to the
10:14
core of their modern European strategy, because Denmark's
10:17
climate policy is rarely discussed in purely
10:20
environmental terms within the halls of their foreign ministry.
10:22
Really, it's not just about saving the planet.
10:24
No, it's a seamless, inseparable fusion of political identity and
10:29
hard, undeniable economic self-interest.
10:33
You have to look at the math of their EU membership.
10:35
OK, lay it out for us. Denmark is a net contributor to
10:39
the EU budget. Meaning they put more money into
10:42
the Central pot in Brussels through their membership fees
10:44
than they take out in direct agricultural or development
10:47
subsidies. Correct.
10:48
So if you are a Danish diplomat, simply going to Brussels and
10:52
asking for more EU funding isn't a winning economic strategy.
10:57
Because you're basically just asking for your own taxpayers
10:59
money back. Exactly, and you probably won't
11:01
get it anyway because the funds are designed to flow to the
11:03
poorer eastern and southern Member States.
11:06
Right, that makes sense. So how do you get a return on
11:08
your European investment then You.
11:09
Use your diplomatic weight to push for incredibly stringent,
11:14
highly ambitious European environmental regulations.
11:18
I see where this is going. This is where we see them
11:19
pushing the EU to increase its 2030 climate target to at least
11:24
a 55% reduction in emissions and heavily backing the massive
11:28
regulatory framework of the European Green Deal.
11:31
Exactly. They want the environmental
11:33
rules governing all 27 Member States to be as legally strict
11:37
as possible. And why is that?
11:39
Because when the entirety of Europe is forced by law to
11:42
transition to green energy, who do they have to buy the
11:45
technology from? They have to buy it from the
11:47
people who already invented it, scaled it, and commercialized
11:50
it. They buy Danish tech Bingo.
11:52
But wait, I have to push back on this a little bit.
11:54
If they are aggressively legislating a green Europe
11:57
specifically to guarantee a massive captive market for their
12:01
own wind turbines, yeah, that sounds less like idealistic
12:04
climate diplomacy and more like a hostile corporate takeover
12:08
disguised as environmentalism. Are they just weaponizing the
12:11
climate crisis for GDP growth? It's easy to view it cynical.
12:15
I mean, it is undoubtedly the ultimate sales pitch.
12:18
But the analysis of their domestic politics shows that the
12:21
environmental concern is also deeply genuine.
12:23
OK, so it's both. Right.
12:25
The Danish electorate genuinely demands aggressive climate
12:28
action. It's a foundational part of
12:30
their modern national identity. The brilliance of the Danish
12:33
state is not that they are faking environmentalism.
12:36
It's that they figured out how to make it highly profitable.
12:38
Exactly. They have perfectly aligned
12:41
their planetary survival goals, macroeconomic growth goals.
12:46
But there is an even deeper political theory at play here
12:49
regarding why Denmark fights so relentlessly in the
12:51
environmental sector. Oh.
12:53
What's that? It comes down to something
12:55
political scientists call the integration dilemma.
12:58
Let's. Break that down for the
12:59
listener. The integration dilemma exists
13:02
because Denmark actually has several official, legally
13:05
binding opt outs from key EU treaties, right?
13:08
Yes. Most notably, they opted out of
13:11
the Economic and Monetary Union, meaning they retain the Danish
13:14
Crone and do not use the euro right.
13:17
And. They historically had a major
13:19
opt out regarding the common security and defense policy,
13:22
which kept them out of EU military coordination for
13:25
decades. So they're kind of.
13:26
Halfway in on some of the biggest European projects?
13:28
Exactly. And because they are legally
13:31
locked out of those massive arenas of European power,
13:33
currency and defense, they operate with a severe deficit of
13:37
traditional geopolitical influence.
13:39
So to compensate for being absent from the rooms where
13:42
monetary policy and military strategy are decided, they must
13:46
absolutely dominate in other areas.
13:48
You nailed. It they have chosen climate,
13:51
energy and labor markets. If they do not lead aggressively
13:54
in these sectors, they risk becoming entirely marginalized
13:57
within the European project. OK, that.
13:59
Makes perfect sense. If you can't play on the
14:02
football field or the baseball diamond because you opted out of
14:05
those sports, you have to be the undisputed, terrifying world
14:08
champion of the tennis court. Otherwise no one pays attention
14:12
to you. That is a.
14:13
Perfect visualization of the integration dilemma.
14:15
They literally have to overcompensate in their chosen
14:18
arenas, but that brings. Us to the operational reality,
14:21
which is how exactly does a state of under 6 million people
14:25
actually force a massive, sluggish block of 27 sovereign
14:29
nations to adopt its preferred, highly ambitious policies?
14:34
It's not easy. Right, because.
14:35
Having the best wind turbines is a great starting point, but
14:38
forcing the French, the Germans and the Polish to change their
14:41
domestic laws is an entirely different challenge.
14:43
And that requires. Highly specialized, almost
14:46
surgical, tactical maneuvering inside the actual committee
14:49
rooms in Brussels. So let's talk.
14:51
About that to understand this we can look at a brilliant analysis
14:55
of Denmark's 2012 EU presidency Yeah, so for.
14:58
Context The EU presidency rotates among the Member States
15:02
every six months. It is the country's turn to
15:05
chair the meetings, set the agenda, guide the legislative
15:08
process. But the unwritten.
15:09
Rule, like the absolute sacred norm of Brussels, is that the
15:12
presidency is supposed to act as an impartial, neutral broker,
15:15
right? Exactly.
15:17
You're supposed to build consensus and find middle
15:19
ground, not just ram your own national agenda down everyone
15:23
else's throat. Yet the.
15:24
Academic Research classifieds Denmark as an activity leader.
15:28
They are infamous in Brussels for being incredibly well
15:31
organized, relentless, and completely pushing the
15:34
boundaries of that neutral role. Well, they.
15:36
Definitely push it. During their 2012 presidency,
15:39
they were trying to pass the Energy Efficiency Directive,
15:41
which was a massive piece of legislation aimed at reducing
15:44
energy consumption across the continent, and they hit a.
15:47
Brick wall they encountered. Severe technical gridlock.
15:50
The European legislative process relies heavily on working
15:53
groups, which are made-up of technical experts and engineers
15:57
from the Member States, and what?
15:59
Happened in those groups in 20. 12 These technical groups were
16:02
completely bogged down in the weeds.
16:04
They could not agree on the math, the definitions of
16:06
efficiency, or the specific technical requirements for
16:10
retrofitting buildings. Now, if you are a technical
16:13
expert sent from Berlin or Paris, your mandate is
16:17
incredibly narrow. You are terrified of straying
16:20
from the spreadsheet your minister gave you.
16:21
Exactly you. Don't have the authority.
16:23
You cannot make political compromises.
16:25
You can only argue about the exact thickness of insulation,
16:29
so the. Entire directive is basically
16:31
dying a slow bureaucratic death. How does Denmark save it?
16:35
They deploy a. Tactic known as process
16:37
impartiality process. Impartiality.
16:39
What is that? It's a vital.
16:41
Concept for understanding Danish influence.
16:43
It means you follow the procedural rules of the
16:45
institution so strictly, so obsessively, and so fairly that
16:49
no one can ever accuse you of cheating or violating your role
16:53
as the neutral chair. OK, but.
16:54
How does that help? Because you.
16:56
Use your deep mastery of those exact rules to completely upend
17:00
the dynamic of the negotiation. In a highly unusual and
17:05
aggressive move, the Danish presidency realized the
17:08
technical experts were paralyzed, right?
17:11
So they took the negotiations entirely out of the technical
17:14
working group and elevated the entire directive straight to the
17:17
core Ripper level for the listener.
17:19
Who hasn't spent time navigating the Brussels bubble?
17:21
Core Ripper stands for the Committee of the Permanent
17:24
Representatives. It is the room where the actual
17:27
ambassadors from each member state meet.
17:30
Exactly. And the psychological and
17:32
political dynamic in corporate was completely different.
17:35
As you noted, technical experts have narrow, rigid mandates by
17:38
ambassadors. Ambassadors.
17:40
However, have broad high level political mandates from their
17:43
prime ministers. They have the political coverage
17:45
of horse trade. They don't argue about
17:47
insulation thickness. They argue about national
17:50
interests. So this is.
17:51
A brilliant mechanical shift. It's like changing the venue of
17:54
a trial to get a completely different jury who cares about
17:57
different evidence. It really.
17:58
Is if you cannot. Win the argument based on the
18:01
rules of the current room. You use your power as the chair
18:05
to physically move the legislation into a room where
18:09
the players have the authority to actually make a deal and
18:12
moving. It to the ambassadors allow
18:14
Denmark to deploy their second major tactic, which is
18:18
relational impartiality. OK.
18:20
What's that one? Well, because.
18:21
Ambassadors can engage in issue linkage, meaning you know, I
18:25
will give you a concession on agricultural funding if you
18:28
support me on this energy efficiency target.
18:31
Denmark had the space to forge a completely unexpected coalition.
18:35
They looked. Past all their usual friends and
18:37
teamed up with Poland, Which? Shocked many observers, I bet.
18:41
I mean, historically in environmental matters, Denmark
18:44
naturally aligns with Germany, Sweden and Finland, the
18:47
traditional wealthy green Nordic and Western European states.
18:51
But in. This specific 2012 negotiation,
18:54
those traditional allies actually oppose the rigid
18:57
efficiency models Denmark was pushing.
18:59
Why? Because they wanted to protect
19:01
their own existing, highly complex national systems.
19:04
They didn't want to change their domestic laws.
19:05
So Denmark. Looks Ox The table realizes
19:08
their usual allies were blocking them and locks eyes with Warsaw.
19:13
Now you have to understand Poland's position in 2012.
19:17
Very different. From Denmark's Poland.
19:19
Was heavily, heavily reliant on coal.
19:21
They did not share Denmark's green progressive ideology in
19:25
the slightest, but Poland. Had two massive overriding
19:28
priorities at the time. Achieving energy independence
19:31
from Russian natural gas and securing financial cohesion
19:35
support from the EU budget. Oh.
19:37
I see the Danish. Marx diplomator realized that
19:39
the Energy Efficiency directive, while technically a climate
19:43
policy, could be sold to Poland as a geopolitical security
19:46
policy. That is so.
19:47
Clever if Poland. Massively increased its energy
19:49
efficiency, it would inherently reduce its overall energy
19:52
demand, thereby reducing its reliance on Russian gas imports.
19:56
So how? Exactly.
19:57
Did they seal the deal by allying?
19:59
With Poland, Denmark offered them a seat at the leadership
20:02
table, likely with implicit understandings regarding
20:04
financial support mechanisms for transition.
20:07
By forging this alliance, Denmark displayed perfect
20:09
relational impartiality. They proved to the rest of the
20:12
block that they weren't just a stubborn stooge for the Nordic
20:16
Green Alliance. They were.
20:17
Perfectly willing to cross traditional geographic and
20:20
ideological fault lines to get a piece of legislation passed.
20:24
Exactly. And this placed immense,
20:27
unexpected pressure on the Western member states who
20:30
thought they could just quietly kill the bill.
20:32
It's basically. 3D chess at that point, right?
20:35
And their ruthlessness doesn't stop at the council doors
20:38
either. Not at all when they face
20:39
further roadblocks from specific stubborn governments.
20:42
The Danish diplomats didn't just give up, they used the European
20:45
Parliament as a pressure valve. Yes.
20:48
They actively teamed up with a Green Party rapporteur from
20:51
Luxembourg and various environmental NGOs based in
20:54
Germany, which perfectly. Illustrates how modern Danish
20:57
diplomats view loyalty and leverage.
21:00
For them, alliances are no longer strictly determined by
21:03
national borders, no. They are determined by
21:06
overlapping political interests. If the German government is
21:10
blocking you in the Council, you bypass the government entirely.
21:14
Team up with German environmental NGOs and use them
21:18
to generate domestic media pressure on that very same
21:21
German government from the inside.
21:22
You squeeze. The legislative process from
21:25
boat ends. It is staggering.
21:27
Bureaucratic efficiency, Truly. But we also see this exact same
21:31
mastery of the rules, this norm entrepreneurship, play out when
21:37
Denmark is on the defense, particularly in labor policy.
21:41
If you look at how they handle EPS go, which is the Employment,
21:44
social policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, it is
21:47
a master class in building a firewall because.
21:50
Labor policy is the ultimate red line for Denmark due to their
21:54
unique domestic setup, which is called democratic corporatism,
21:57
right? Let's explain what that actually
21:59
looks like on the ground in Copenhagen, because it's so
22:01
different from the rest of Europe, very different.
22:03
Unlike. France or Spain, where the
22:04
government frequently steps in to mandate a national minimum
22:08
wage or dictate strict working hours via top down legislation.
22:12
The Danish state largely stays out of it right instead.
22:15
They have a tripartite system. The government, the massive
22:18
employers associations and the highly organized trade unions
22:22
all sit down together and negotiate wages, benefits and
22:25
conditions collectively. It is a.
22:27
Deeply ingrained, highly functional system of collective
22:31
bargaining and the Danish are terrified that well meaning
22:34
bureaucrats in Brussels will try to impose A1 size fits all EU
22:39
minimum wage or labor directive, because that would.
22:41
Legally overwrite and destroy this delicate tripartite
22:44
balance. They fiercely protect this model
22:47
from any EU interference. So how do you?
22:50
Protect your borders from EU overreach without looking like a
22:53
stubborn anti European nationalist.
22:55
You go to Brussels. And you use the tactic of
22:57
aggressive positivity. Aggressive.
22:58
Positivity I love that it's true the.
23:01
Danish diplomats go into these EPS Co meetings and act like the
23:05
ultimate supportive team players.
23:07
They constantly praise other countries domestic initiatives.
23:10
Oh. Germany, your new youth
23:12
employment policy is wonderful. France Excellent work on on your
23:16
pension reform exactly. It is entirely strategic.
23:19
They build an enormous reservoir of goodwill.
23:22
They champion the idea of sharing best practices rather
23:25
than imposing binding directives they make themselves.
23:28
Look like the most cooperative pro European member state in the
23:32
room but once. Everyone is smiling and nodding.
23:35
They aggressively pivot. Here comes.
23:37
They use all. That generated goodwill to draw
23:40
a massive, immovable line in the sand.
23:42
They basically. Say because we are all such
23:44
great Europeans and because we all respect each other's unique
23:47
cultures so much, the EU Commission must absolutely,
23:51
fundamentally respect our National Labor systems and
23:54
refrain from top down legislation is defensive.
23:57
Diplomacy executed through positive reinforcement.
24:00
They use the very language of European integration, mutual
24:03
respect, diversity of systems, cooperation to actively block
24:07
European integration in the labor market.
24:09
They weaponize. The E us own vocabulary to
24:11
protect their national sovereignty.
24:13
That is brilliant it really. Is OK, we have.
24:16
Covered the historical origins of the market diplomats and we
24:19
have done a deep dive into the invisible tactical machinery of
24:23
how they manipulate Brussels. But now I want to pivot to
24:26
something much more tangible. I want to look at the physical,
24:29
concrete manifestation of this diplomacy.
24:32
Because Denmark is no longer just writing clever directives
24:35
and manipulating committees. No, they are.
24:37
Literally, physically rewiring the geographic map of Europe.
24:41
Exactly. You are referring to the energy
24:43
islands, and it is difficult to overstate the scale of this.
24:47
This is perhaps the most ambitious transformative
24:50
physical infrastructure project in modern European history.
24:53
If you want to see. This bureaucratic maneuvering
24:55
poured into concrete and steel. Look at the Baltic Sea right
24:58
now. The Cornerstone.
24:59
Of this strategy is the Bornholm energy island along with massive
25:04
artificial island hubs plan for the North Sea right just.
25:07
Recently, Denmark and Germany signed a binding agreement to
25:11
link 3 gigawatts of offshore wind energy generated at at the
25:14
Born Home hub directly to both of their national grids and the
25:18
EU. Commission is heralding this as
25:20
the first major delivery of their Continental Energy
25:23
Highways initiative to truly. Grasp the geopolitical weight of
25:27
this. We need to look at the paradigm
25:29
shift it represents regarding sovereign resources.
25:32
What do you mean? Well, for the last century, a
25:35
country's energy paradigm was simple.
25:38
You dug coal out of a mine within your own borders, or you
25:41
pumped oil from a rig off your own coast, and you burned it
25:44
strictly for your own national use energy.
25:46
Was a jealously guarded national asset.
25:49
Exactly. But what Denmark is doing with
25:52
these offshore energy islands is fundamentally changing that
25:55
logic. They are transitioning offshore
25:58
wind from a national resource into a shared pan European
26:01
resource. They are turning.
26:03
The turbulent waters of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea
26:06
into massive interconnected green power plants that feed
26:09
multiple countries simultaneously and this
26:12
infrastructure. Is not just about keeping the
26:13
lights on in Berlin or Copenhagen.
26:15
It ties directly into a critical emerging technology known as
26:19
Power to X or PTX. Now you might.
26:21
Be thinking why do we need a special technology with a sci-fi
26:25
name like power to X if we already have wind turbines?
26:28
It comes down to the fundamental physics of renewable energy
26:31
doesn't it? It does.
26:33
Wind power is fluctuating. Sometimes a massive storm rolls
26:36
through the North Sea and the turbines generate so much
26:39
electricity you don't know what to do with it and other.
26:41
Times the air is dead calm, right?
26:44
And our current electrical grids are not designed to store
26:47
massive amounts of raw electricity.
26:48
Long term, you cannot capture a hurricane's worth of energy in
26:53
standard lithium on batteries. So what's the?
26:55
Solution Power to X. Solves this fundamental storage
26:58
problem by taking that massive surplus of wind electricity and
27:02
converting it the X in the equation into sustainable
27:06
combustible green fuels. We are specifically.
27:09
Talking about using electrolysis to create green hydrogen, which
27:12
can then be synthesized into green ammonia or E methanol,
27:16
which is the. Absolute Holy Grail for
27:17
decarbonizing heavy industry, right?
27:20
Because. While you can run a Tesla on a
27:22
battery, you absolutely cannot not run a massive Maersk cargo
27:26
ship carrying 20,000 shipping containers or a Boeing
27:29
commercial airliner on a battery.
27:31
No, the batteries. Required would be so heavy that
27:33
the ship would sink and the plane would never leave the
27:35
runway. You need energy density.
27:37
You need a combustible liquid fuel.
27:39
Exactly. By mastering the engineering and
27:41
the infrastructure of Power to X, Denmark isn't just
27:45
decarbonizing the European electricity grid.
27:47
They are strategically positioning themselves to become
27:50
the primary providers of the sustainable fuels that will
27:54
power the entire global shipping and aviation industries for the
27:57
next century. And if we look at.
27:59
Their diplomatic actions? They are completely ruthless
28:02
about securing this future. How so?
28:04
They are not just patiently building the new green system,
28:06
they're actively, aggressively trying to dismantle the old
28:10
fossil fuel system globally. Right.
28:13
In 2021, Denmark Co founded BUA GA, the Beyond Oil and Gas
28:17
Alliance. The explicit.
28:18
Stated goal of this diplomatic coalition is to force countries
28:21
to set a hard, legally binding end date for all oil and gas
28:25
extraction worldwide and they. Established credibility by
28:29
applying the paint to themselves first, didn't they?
28:31
They did. Denmark, which was historically
28:34
a significant oil producer in Europe, pass legislation
28:37
committing to ending all North Sea fossil fuel extraction by
28:40
2050. Wow.
28:42
Furthermore, they took their agenda to the International
28:44
Maritime Organization, the IMO, which governs global shipping.
28:49
They led a fierce diplomatic charge to force the IMO to adopt
28:53
A goal of 0 emission global shipping by 2050.
28:56
So they are. Regulating the old fuels out of
28:59
existence, knowing full well that they hold the patent and
29:01
the production capacity for the new fuels.
29:04
Exactly. So they are literally building
29:06
the physical extension cords that will tie European
29:09
geopolitics together, and they are trying to monopolize the
29:12
maritime fuel of the future. But this aggressive expansion
29:15
raises a massive, glaring question about vulnerabilities.
29:18
It really does. What happens if the wind just
29:20
doesn't blow for three weeks? By making Germany and the rest
29:24
of Europe heavily reliant on these offshore Danish hubs, are
29:27
they inadvertently creating a new catastrophic strategic
29:31
vulnerability? It's the.
29:33
Critical underlying anxiety of any renewable heavy grid.
29:37
I mean, we all. Just witnessed the economic
29:39
devastation that occurred when Europe relied too heavily on a
29:42
single node of energy, Russian natural gas and the Danish.
29:45
Strategists are acutely aware of it.
29:48
The analysis we are reviewing, particularly a deep dive report
29:51
from the French Institute of International Relations, IFRE,
29:55
highlights the reality of the Danish grid today.
29:57
And what's? That reality, despite the.
30:00
Massive wind capacity. Denmark still relies heavily on
30:03
dispatchable power sources to balance the grid when the wind
30:06
drops. Currently, natural gas still
30:09
plays an important balancing role which creates.
30:11
A severe tension point, given their explicit, loud desire to
30:15
phase out fossil fuels entirely. Exactly.
30:18
So what is their bridge fuel? How do they keep the lights on
30:20
when it's a calm day in the North Sea?
30:22
Biomass. Biomass.
30:23
Yeah. Burning wood.
30:24
Pellets, agricultural waste and organic matter in retrofitted
30:28
power plants. It provides the steady,
30:31
predictable baseload power that makes their massive, fluctuating
30:34
wind expansion mathematically possible.
30:37
But as. The EFA report notes the
30:39
sustainability credentials of biomass remain an incredibly
30:43
contentious and heavily debated question.
30:45
Extremely. Debated, right?
30:47
Because. Is it truly sustainable to chop
30:49
down trees in the Baltic states or the US S process them into
30:52
wood pellets, ship them on diesel burning cargo ships
30:55
across the ocean just to burn them in a Danish power plant so
30:59
they can claim their grid is green?
31:01
It is. A heated debate, but for right
31:03
now the brutal reality of physics means biomass is the
31:07
only thing keeping the Danish grid stable enough to support
31:09
the energy islands, that is. Wild.
31:12
OK, so we have seen how they dominate the EU internally with
31:15
process manipulation and how they are rewiring the energy
31:19
infrastructure externally. But the final piece of this
31:22
geopolitical puzzle takes us out of Europe entirely.
31:25
It does. We need to look at Denmark's
31:26
role in the Global South. And I want to pause here for a
31:29
moment to address you, the listener, directly.
31:31
This is important. Context it is.
31:33
The strategy documents we are about to discuss outline the
31:36
Danish government's official approach to global development
31:39
aid, which explicitly and unapologetically links
31:42
international charity to irregular migration, asylum
31:46
policy and hard security interventions in fragile states
31:50
like the Sahel in Africa and Afghanistan.
31:52
I want to be perfectly clear, neither I nor the expert are
31:56
taking a political stance on this.
31:58
We are not endorsing these policies, nor are we criticizing
32:01
them from a left wing humanitarian perspective or a
32:03
right wing nationalist perspective.
32:05
Absolutely not. Our mission today is simply to
32:08
impartially report on the factual content and the
32:11
underlying logic of the Danish governments official strategy, a
32:15
document titled The World We Share, so you can fully
32:18
understand the mechanics of their geopolitical framework.
32:20
Thank you for setting. That boundary, that context, is
32:23
absolutely vital because if you approach the Danish development
32:26
strategy expecting standard, idealistic international
32:29
charity, you will be deeply confused.
32:31
It's very. Different their approach.
32:33
To aid in the global S is just as pragmatic, highly structured
32:37
and ruthlessly calculated as their approach to dominating
32:41
wind turbine markets. Let's start with.
32:43
The baseline numbers Denmark is one of the very few nations on
32:46
earth that actually consistently meets the United Nations target
32:50
of spending .7% of its gross national income on International
32:55
Development aid in. Absolute terms, they spend a
32:58
massive amount of money, but it is how and why they spend it
33:01
that breaks the mold to understand.
33:03
The how You really only need to look at the business card of one
33:06
of their most important diplomats.
33:08
Ole Thunk. Yes.
33:10
He holds a fascinating dual title.
33:12
He's the Under Secretary for Development policy, A&D, the
33:15
official climate ambassador for Denmark, those two.
33:18
Portfolios are usually housed in completely different buildings
33:21
in most government. Oh, totally.
33:22
But it is a deliberate structural fusion.
33:25
In the Danish strategic view, climate policy and development
33:28
policy are indistinguishable. You absolutely cannot solve 1
33:31
without the other. Consequently.
33:33
Denmark has committed to directing a full 30% of all its
33:36
development funds specifically to climate related efforts and
33:40
if. You dig into the spreadsheets,
33:42
you see that the majority of this money isn't going towards
33:44
building shiny new wind farms and developing nations to reduce
33:48
global carbon emissions. Wait.
33:49
Really, where is it going? It is.
33:51
Going towards adaptation in the poorest, most vulnerable regions
33:55
on Earth. Mitigation is about stopping
33:58
climate change. Adaptation is about helping
34:00
society survive the climate change that is already baked
34:03
into the system. Yes.
34:05
Danish funds are building flood defenses in coastal cities,
34:08
developing drought resistant agriculture in arid regions and
34:11
securing clean water supplies. But the strategy?
34:14
Document The world we share doesn't just present this as a
34:17
moral imperative to help the poor, does it?
34:19
Well, it. Takes it a critical step
34:21
further. It draws a direct, explicit
34:23
causal line between climate change, extreme poverty, violent
34:28
conflict, and human displacement.
34:30
This is where. We see the ultimate integration
34:32
of foreign development policy and domestic border security
34:35
exactly. The Danish strategic assessment
34:37
views climate change as a threat multiplier.
34:40
The logic chain is stark. Severe droughts in the Sahel
34:43
lead to failed. Agricultural harvests failed.
34:46
Harvests lead to widespread desperate poverty.
34:50
Poverty. Leads to violent conflict
34:52
between communities, fighting over rapidly shrinking
34:55
resources, and violent. Conflict leads to the mass
34:58
displacement of millions of people, people who have lost
35:00
everything, who eventually start moving N which results.
35:04
In waves of irregular migration toward the borders of Europe.
35:07
So what's their? Solution the Danish.
35:09
Calculus is that by investing heavily, early and aggressively
35:13
in climate adaptation, water security, and job creation in
35:16
fragile regions like the Sahel or Afghanistan, they are
35:19
attempting to stabilize these regions at the source.
35:23
So the. Explicit written goal of the
35:25
World We Share is to mitigate the core pressures that fuel
35:29
irregular migration and forced displacement, long before
35:33
desperate people ever feel the need to pay smugglers and
35:36
undertake incredibly dangerous journeys toward the European
35:38
continent. Exactly.
35:40
It is a fascinating, proactive approach to border security, but
35:43
the strategy? Documents also reveal that this
35:45
aid is not a blank check. Definitely.
35:47
Not they enforce. Strict hard nosed conditionality
35:50
on this funding. The strategy clearly and
35:53
unapologetically states that Denmark will generally refuse to
35:56
provide long term development assistance to sovereign states
36:00
that refuse to cooperate on readmitting their own citizens
36:03
if those citizens are legally deported from Denmark.
36:06
It creates. A closed loop system, it ties
36:09
the receipt of vital humanitarian and structural
36:12
development funding directly to a nations cooperation on Danish
36:16
domestic asylum and border management priorities.
36:19
If you don't help. Us manage our borders.
36:20
We won't help you build your water infrastructure,
36:23
essentially. Yes.
36:24
Furthermore, they don't just wire cash to NGO's and hope for
36:27
the best. They deploy A mechanism they
36:29
call Strategic Sector cooperation, which loops.
36:32
US Right back to the ethos of the markets diplomator from the
36:35
1960s, right? It does.
36:37
Strategic sector cooperation means Denmark physically sends
36:40
technical experts, engineers and bureaucrats directly from the
36:43
Danish government ministries, experts in groundwater
36:46
management, agricultural yield optimization or grid stability,
36:50
and they. Send them to sit inside the
36:52
ministries of partner countries in the global S Exactly.
36:55
It is direct government to government knowledge sharing.
36:58
They are. Exporting bureaucratic
37:00
competence. They really.
37:01
Are so when you. Step back and look at the whole
37:03
picture. The .7% spending target, the
37:06
strict conditionality on taking back deported citizens, and the
37:09
deployment of technical experts to stabilize failing regions.
37:13
It sounds like Denmark has completely redefined the concept
37:16
of international charity. It's no longer.
37:18
Just about altruism or feeling good, No it.
37:21
Is a strict, highly calculated tool of national security,
37:24
border management and demographic stabilization.
37:28
It feels highly pragmatic, almost entirely transactional I
37:32
think. Transactional accurately
37:33
captures the strip conditionality, but holistic It
37:37
might be the word the strategist sitting in Copenhagen would
37:40
prefer to use fairpoint. In the deeply pragmatic Danish
37:43
view, building resilient democratic societies.
37:45
They're based on human rights and the rule of law in the
37:48
Global South is not just a nice charitable thing to do for the
37:51
world, it is the. Single most effective,
37:53
mathematically sound way to secure Denmark's own future
37:57
borders, protect their welfare state and maintain domestic
38:00
stability. Exactly.
38:02
It is a total fusion of genuine, deeply held humanitarian values
38:07
with hard nosed unsentimental geopolitical realism.
38:11
Their defining. Philosophy is that you can only
38:13
truly take care of Denmark by forcefully managing the chaos of
38:17
the outside world. Precisely.
38:18
And that brings. Us perfectly full circle.
38:21
We started this hour by questioning how a state with the
38:24
population of a single American city can possibly punch so far
38:28
above its weight class on the global stage.
38:30
And the answer. As we've uncovered is that they
38:32
don't rely on the traditional math of aircraft carriers and
38:36
landmass. No, they.
38:37
Exert power through relentless, highly coordinated, unapologetic
38:41
pragmatism. Let's summarize the incredible
38:44
journey we've been on today. It's been quite all.
38:46
Right, we started. Back in the 1960s, with the
38:48
markets diplomator, the clever civil servants who played
38:51
Britain against Germany to ensure the survival of their
38:54
butter and bacon exports right, we saw how that exact same
38:57
bureaucratic DNA evolved into a modern economic juggernaut where
39:01
aggressive climate policy guarantees A captive European
39:03
market for their massive €13 billion wind turbine industry.
39:07
We. Decoded the masterful
39:09
manipulations of EU bureaucracy. Elevating technical gridlock to
39:13
the ambassadorial level through process impartiality and forging
39:18
unlikely highly transactional coalitions with coal reliant
39:22
countries like Poland to punch directives through the council.
39:25
We looked at how they are. Literally rewiring the physical
39:28
map of the continent with the Bornholm energy island and power
39:31
to X technology. Maneuvering to own the maritime
39:34
fuels of the future while actively legislating fossil
39:37
fuels out of existence. And finally, we explored how
39:40
they deploy that exact same pragmatic mindset to their
39:43
global development aid utilizing climate adaptation funding and
39:47
strict conditionality as direct forward deployed tool for global
39:51
stability and European migration management.
39:53
It truly is. A master class in modern small
39:56
state influence it is. But as we look to the future, it
39:59
leaves us with a significant structural question to ponder.
40:02
What's that? We've seen.
40:03
Exactly how Denmark uses its incredible bureaucratic agility
40:07
to run circles around larger, slower states within the
40:10
consensus driven machinery of the European Union.
40:12
But as the global climate crisis accelerates and as green
40:16
technology evolves at breakneck speed, will the traditional slow
40:20
moving institutions of the EU and the UN be able to keep up
40:24
with the required pace of change that is the. $1,000,000 Question
40:27
or will? Agile activity leaders like
40:30
Denmark eventually outgrow and bypass the very diplomatic
40:33
frameworks they help build, seeking faster, more direct
40:37
coalitions of the willing to force global change That is a.
40:40
Brilliant thought to leave on when the traditional machinery
40:43
of global diplomacy is gridlocked.
40:45
It's the the agile navigators who get to write the rules of
40:48
the new reality. Absolutely.
40:49
Thank you so much for joining us for this extensive deep dive on
40:52
diplomacy and international relations.
40:55
Thanks for listening. If you found.
40:57
This exploration into the mechanics of power valuable.
40:59
Please make sure to follow the podcast on your favorite app,
41:02
and we strongly request that you take a quick moment to rate US
41:05
five stars. It truly is the absolute best
41:08
way to help the show reach even more people who are fascinated
41:11
by the hitting Gears of global politics.
41:13
Until next time, keep looking beneath the surface.