Many are calling 2025 Denmark’s “super year” — a rare convergence where a small nation finds itself holding two of the most consequential leadership roles in international diplomacy.
Since January, Denmark has served as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (2025–2026), directly shaping debates on some of the world’s most pressing security challenges — from Ukraine to the Middle East to the future of peacekeeping itself.
In March, Denmark took the presidency of the Council, chairing pivotal discussions on Women, Peace, and Security and Climate, Peace, and Security, signaling its ambition to influence not just Europe’s future, but the global order.
And now, as of July 1, Denmark assumes the rotating presidency of the EU Council, under the theme “A Strong Europe in a Changing World.”
For any country, either role would be significant. Holding both — simultaneously — is extraordinarily rare.
It positions Denmark at the heart of European policymaking while offering it a direct voice at the global security table. A moment of influence. A moment of exposure. A moment that amplifies both opportunity and responsibility.
No ordinary presidency
But this is no ordinary presidency.
Denmark steps into a landscape shaped by complexity, volatility, and structural uncertainty.
It inherits a Union facing a convergence of pressure— rising security demands, internal fragmentation, geopolitical realignments, and a global economic order undergoing rapid transformation.
The next six months will not merely shape the EU’s policy direction.
They may serve as a litmus test — a preview of how Europe adapts to an international environment fundamentally different from the one that defined the last three decades.
Security Moves to the Center of Europe’s Agenda
For much of its recent history, the European project has operated with security as an implicit guarantee — often underpinned by the transatlantic alliance and NATO.
That assumption is now being directly challenged, openly, publicly and on several platforms and levels.
The ongoing war in Ukraine, combined with a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy under the current administration, has elevated security from a sectoral concern to a central organizing principle of EU policymaking.
Denmark, traditionally associated with fiscal prudence and consensus-building, assumes the presidency at a time when the Union is undergoing a rapid shift toward prioritizing defense, resilience, and strategic autonomy.
This shift is visible in both financial and political terms. Denmark itself has moved away from the so-called “Frugal Four” — a coalition focused on limiting EU spending — signaling a broader recalibration across the continent where defense and security now influence budgetary priorities.
Transatlantic Uncertainty and Strategic Adjustments
The evolving relationship with the United States adds further complexity.
The prospect of significant U.S. tariffs on European goods introduces immediate economic risks, while broader questions around security commitments — including tensions related to the status of Greenland — highlight how traditional alliances are being tested in new ways.
The EU response will likely balance two parallel tracks: mitigating short-term risks, such as trade disruptions, while advancing long-term objectives around strategic autonomy in defense, energy, and technology.
Denmark’s role as the presidency holder involves not only facilitating this balancing act but also helping shape how the EU defines its position in a multipolar, less predictable world order.
Internal EU Dynamics: Between Fragmentation and Adaptation
Internally, the presidency faces a challenging political landscape.
Efforts to advance further sanctions on Russia have encountered obstacles, most notably Slovakia’s veto linked to energy-related concerns.
Similarly, the enlargement process faces significant hurdles, with Hungary continuing to block the opening of negotiations with Ukraine despite formal assessments that key criteria have been met.
Diplomatic solutions may involve creative procedural adjustments — such as decoupling Moldova’s accession process from Ukraine’s — or new forms of consensus-building designed to navigate around persistent vetoes without undermining the Union’s legal frameworks.
On migration, the EU continues to move toward a more restrictive and externally managed approach, reflecting a broader trend among member states toward prioritizing border control mechanisms and asylum policy reforms.
The Danish model, previously considered an exception, increasingly informs EU-level discussions.
The Budget Debate: A Reflection of Deeper Shifts
Denmark’s presidency coincides with the start of negotiations on the EU’s next multi-annual financial framework (2028–2034), a process that encapsulates many of the broader tensions facing the Union.
Traditional divides over fiscal responsibility are being reshaped by new demands around defense spending, climate adaptation, energy security, and digital competitiveness.
Germany has already signaled opposition to any permanent joint borrowing mechanisms, suggesting that familiar debates over debt mutualization and fiscal solidarity will resurface — but in a transformed context where security considerations weigh heavily.
How Denmark navigates these early discussions may set the tone for whether the EU’s financial architecture evolves in response to these pressures or remains constrained by earlier paradigms.
The Green Transition: Between Resilience and Retrenchment
Another key tension point lies in the future of the Green Deal.
A growing number of member states argue that certain environmental regulations should be rolled back or delayed in the interest of economic competitiveness, particularly amid inflationary pressures and supply chain disruptions.
Denmark, whose domestic model demonstrates that decarbonization and economic growth can be aligned, positions the presidency at the intersection of these debates.
Whether the EU can maintain momentum on climate goals while addressing competitiveness concerns will be a defining test in the months ahead.
The outcome is unlikely to be binary. Instead, what may emerge is a more flexible policy architecture — one that seeks to balance environmental ambitions with industrial policy, energy security, and economic resilience.
Trade Risks in a Fragmented Global Economy
The potential for a transatlantic trade dispute — triggered by proposed U.S. tariffs — underscores the vulnerability of open economies like Denmark’s and, more broadly, the EU’s reliance on global trade flows.
Complicating the picture is the possibility of indirect effects stemming from U.S.-China trade tensions, including the risk of surplus Chinese goods — particularly in green technologies and industrial sectors — entering European markets as a consequence of redirected trade.
This situation places the EU at the intersection of great power competition, forcing it to accelerate efforts to diversify trade partnerships and strengthen internal market resilience.
A Presidency as a Mirror of Europe’s Crossroads
Denmark’s presidency of the EU Council does not occur in isolation. It reflects — and in some ways magnifies — the broader transitions underway in Europe’s strategic posture, economic model, and governance structures.
The question facing the EU is not merely how to respond to individual crises, but whether it can adapt its foundational frameworks to a world where assumptions about security, open markets, and multilateral stability are increasingly uncertain.
The Danish presidency’s ability to facilitate progress on issues such as Ukraine, the EU budget, climate policy, migration, and trade will serve as a barometer for the Union’s broader capacity to navigate this era of disruption.
What is clear is that this presidency is unlikely to be remembered for routine legislative achievements.
It will be judged instead by whether it can help Europe pivot — from fragility to resilience, from fragmentation to cohesion, and from dependency toward greater strategic autonomy.
In that sense, Denmark’s presidency may well be less about steering the ship of Europe, and more about testing whether the ship itself can hold.
Ali Al Mokdad is a humanitarian leader, strategist, and governance expert with over 15 years of experience enhancing humanitarian operations across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. He has held senior leadership roles in NGOs, UN agencies, and donor institutions, spearheading multimillion-dollar programs and optimizing complex operations for greater impact.
