A simmering geopolitical tension is emerging in the Arctic, highlighted by a recent Forsa poll revealing significant German public support for defending Greenland should the United States initiate military action against the Danish territory. The survey, commissioned by “Stern” magazine and RTL Deutschland, underscores a complex web of international alliances and domestic political divisions surrounding the potential scenario.
The findings indicate that 62% of German respondents believe their nation should, alongside other allies, provide assistance to Denmark if a U.S. presidential threat manifests in an actual attack and triggers a formal alliance invocation. This substantial majority contrasts with the 32% who oppose such intervention and the 6% who expressed no opinion. The poll, conducted January 8th and 9th, 2026, surveyed 1,002 individuals.
Support for military engagement is largely aligned with the established political landscape. Strong backing was evident among supporters of the Green Party (75%), the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Left Party (71%) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) (68%). This reflects a traditional understanding of treaty obligations and a commitment to collective security within the transatlantic alliance.
However, the results expose a stark partisan divide. Within the ranks of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a clear majority (59%) oppose military assistance to Denmark, with only 37% expressing support. This stance aligns with the AfD’s broader skepticism towards international institutions and foreign entanglement, raising questions about the party’s long-term vision for German foreign policy and its commitment to existing security frameworks.
The prospect of a U.S. action against Greenland and the potential invocation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty, presents a delicate political challenge for Germany. While the German public largely demonstrates a willingness to uphold its treaty obligations, the significant opposition within the AfD highlights a hardening ideological rift and signals the potential for domestic political friction should the situation escalate. The divergent perspectives also underscore the need for careful diplomatic navigation and a nuanced assessment of the geopolitical ramifications of U.S. policy in the Arctic region – a region increasingly vital for strategic resources and global power projection.