Mette Frederiksen: We will need a rearmament of the spirit
: 03.04.2025
There was a lot of interest when Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen visited AAU on Tuesday to debate the future of Europe with the university's students. She pointed out the importance of education and research for meeting the challenges that come from Russia and a changing world.
By Lea Laursen Pasgaard and Sofie Astrup, AAU Communication and Public Affairs
Photo: Lasse Møller Badstue
The voices of the future are not afraid to ask the difficult questions. This became clear when Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (Social Democrats) met AAU's students on Tuesday, 1 April for a debate on security policy and Denmark's role in a changed world.
After brief remarks, hands were raised with sharp questions on big topics. Who really poses the greatest security threat to Denmark at the moment – Russia or the United States? Have we been asleep at the wheel when it comes to Greenland?
The Prime Minister was also asked several questions about which degree programmes will be particularly important in the future and how strengthening long-cycle higher education programmes will be included in the forthcoming rearmament of the country. To this, Mette Frederiksen replied that she believes the military rearmament cannot stand alone.
"We will need a rearmament that is at least as important. That is a rearmament of the spirit. In the coming years, we will be bombarded with knowledge that is not real, and we’ve seen a rather wild transformation of the public debate in recent years," said Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
"We now see that facts are up for discussion, and that is really, really dangerous," she added.
When you look at the combination of conspiracy theories, fake news, robots, algorithms and artificial intelligence, the Prime Minister believes that our resilience as individuals will be crucial for the future of democracy.
"We simply have to be smart. We have to be skilled. We must be curious, and we must be able to distinguish between whether a post on social media is right or wrong. This will place maddening demands on all of us, and so it’s clear that the universities will play a huge role in ensuring that we are able to distinguish between right and wrong," he said.
After 37 minutes, the debate was concluded. The Prime Minister also had time to stay after the event to answer even more questions from the students in attendance.
What’s your takeaway from the debate with Mette Frederiksen?
Habil Abdirishid Ali Odaysuge: "The spiritual rearmament" – there is a demand that we should throw more money at defence, which makes me wonder where the money will come from. Because when we rearm, we can either increase the tax burden or redistribute more of the money that is already being spent in the public sector into defence. So I would have liked the opportunity to ask her which option she would choose.
Casper Kanta Dokter: I’m curious about what we, as the West, need to tolerate when it comes to the relationship between the United States and Europe, and how Europe can stand together against Russia. To me, it sounded like her idea is that we should stand together, but I have doubts about how we continue to do that with the overtures we’re getting from the US, and whether we will be able to respond adequately.
What was most interesting?
Habil Abdirishid Ali Odaysuge: Denmark is not a particularly big geopolitical player. So I thought it was interesting to hear how this will affect us as the general public. The most interesting thing for me is how Denmark will act on the international stage as part of the EU, and how this will affect us and our use of public institutions.
Casper Kanta Dokter: For me, it was the geopolitical situation. The debate was also about Europe and Europe's security, so the way she made it clear that Russia is our biggest enemy right now was interesting.
What’s your takeaway from the debate with Mette Frederiksen?
Anna Signe Corneliussen: What I took away is that the war is probably closer than I expected. However, it doesn’t sound like it will be a traditional war, but a trade and tariff war. The debate also brought home for me how this affects us in our everyday lives and how the war can affect the younger generation. Both socially and in terms of our safety net if there is an active war.
What was most interesting?
Anna Signe Corneliussen: She spoke of our spiritual education. That we must learn to distinguish between facts and fake news. I think that was a good point in relation to how students and staff at the university can help to resist.
What’s your takeaway from the debate with Mette Frederiksen?
Thomas Storm: I would have liked to have heard about the politics within Danish society and was surprised that it was about a war that is apparently just around the corner, and that Mette Frederiksen sees us in the most uncertain situation in several years.
Sebastian Sørensen: Between the lines, I think she was expressing that we should think it’s cool for the younger generation to go to war to defend and die for our country. I think it was reminiscent of propaganda and a way of saying that we must do our duty.
What was most interesting?
Thomas Storm: I’m a bit critical; she said many positive things, but I wonder if the rearmament of Denmark into a war country will be at the expense of our welfare. Should we be blind to things being taken away from us? She mentioned that we must fight for our democracy which we have fought for throughout history, but then shouldn’t we also fight for our welfare?
Sebastian Sørensen: I’m aware that the Danish model is completely unique and that we should be grateful that we can get an education with a state education grant, but I think that the tone made us students sound ungrateful. For me, it was an unpleasant way of defending why the Master's programmes are being cut. The debate took an ironic turn as we are being asked to fight for the welfare that is being taken away from us.
