Danmarks støtte til Ukraine.

Danmark ligger i den absolutte top. Man vrider og vender; men uanset hvilke kriterier, man bruger så er Danmark langt fremme i skoene.

Kunne de penge ikke være bedre anvendt på danske borgere? Nej, da! Skulle man give skattelettelser til Nordsjællandske flextumper? Næh, det vil ikke gavne noget.
Det jeg spekulerer på er, hvor meget har man lagt sin klamme hånd på russiske midler indskudt i Danske Bank?
Det andet er, at Danmark tjener fedt på ikke bare olie/gas produktion; men nok så meget på distributionen.

Det er også fidusen, at de langsigtede obligationer sælges til meget fordelagtige (for Danmark) priser. Nationalbanken er iskold, når man sætter skæringskursen under auktionerne. Skæringskursen bliver sat så afkastet på obligationerne er præcist 2½%, som er nok til en kompensation for inflationen. Fidusen er, at når kursen på DKK er kommet lidt for langt ned så sælger man lange statsobligationer, som stort set alle vil have - fordi de penge tager ikke deres gode tøj og går. Problemet er, at den danske økonomi er så forholdsvis lille, så der ikke er plads til så mange serier - der samtidig er likvide.

Fidusen for investor er, at f.eks. en 30 årig obligation med lav kupon bliver mere værd, hvert år - simpelt hen fordi (1+i)ⁿ, som man dividerer hovedstolen frem til udbetalingen, bliver mindre år for år - Da n bliver formindsket med 1 hvert år. Da der ikke er nogen kupon af betydning betyder bortfaldet af én  kupon udbetalingen ikke ret meget i forhold. Er obligationen med høj kupon så bliver den mindre værd fordi en renteudbetaling falder bort. 4½% 2039 er ved at nå balancepunktet, hvor den er ved at blive mindre værd som tiden går, hvorfor man nu begynder så småt at købe dem tilbage - og der er MANGE af dem (over 100 mia. kr.).
Men derfor vil Nationalbanken tjene på de lange obligationer.

Men til november forfalder 60 mia. i 0% 2024 - så der bliver behov for endnu en serie af lange obligationer - og de bliver dyre.

Det, der også ligger i Danmarks donationer til Ukraine (og læg mærke til, at den væsentlige del af Danmarks støtte er en bilateral støtte) er, at de CAESAR får et ordentligt produtions volumen. Fidusen er, at de europæiske virksomheder har nyudviklet våbensystemer, hvor USA er bundet op på produktion af noget materiel, der er bedaget. Noget af det gamle skidt er faktisk rigtig godt - f.eks. det nye lette maskingevær, der er udmærket (efter man retter alle fejlene).

Det bliver en boomerang for amerikanerne, der presser os til at bruge flere penge på forsvar: Det både kan og skal vi; men det bliver nok ikke amerikanske våben vi køber.

Som skrevet andet steds:

1. The 10 year cooperation agreement is simply to guard against a change in government in Denmark, which is also why the other Nordic countries have made a similar agreements. This is to avoid repeating the farce in USA. There are political forces in Denmark that might be ameniable to pressure from Russian threats. It is much to preempt further Russian pressure.
   Denmark also has its assortment of political nutcases.
   
2. The aid to Ukrainian weapons industry is in Danish interest, as the production of f.i. artillery shells is spread out, so a Russian attack or sabotage cannot paralyse - as there is always alternate suppliers - which important to high volume, standardized products - so we do not get into the situation, where Norwegean shells had to be rebuild to be used.
   There is also the vulnerability to a monopoly as a producer to be considered. That is a kick in the butt to Sweden, as the Draken aircraft were VERY expensive in spare parts.
   
3. The problem with repairs on infra structure. The power supply in Denmark is extensive and it is a bit of a question how to give the experienced personel a steady job and maintain the expertise. It will cost a bit more; but we are not likely to be caught with our pants down.
   
4. The USA could - in theory - isolate themselves; but it would be VERY expensive for the US taxpayer. The USA is also not immune to monopolies in the defence sector, so standardizing will lead to monopolies - which is not a cost effective way of solving the problems.
   The problem with repairs on infra structure. The power supply in Denmark is extensive and it is a bit of a question how to give the experienced personel a steady job and maintain the expertise. It will cost a bit more; but we are not likely to be caught with our pants down.
   

som skrevet andet steds.

Well, what I think: The reported withdrawals from some villages in Donetsk is a trap to lure the russians out in the open where they can be whacked by tube artillery, mortars, drones, machinegun fire simultaneously.

At the same time there has been ½ year moaning about the lack of artillery shells. Everybody is talking about the artillery drought. Of course there are not enough artillery shells - there never is. Personally I think there has already been testbatches send to Ukraine from several producers. It is important to get a quality check - artillery grenades are nasty stuff. The production is increasing and it is important to find out which producer is going to get the big orders that can justify investment in modern production equipment.

Sourcing artillery shells should not be to difficult, as most countries have shells nearing expirery data - just like groceries in the supermarket. I think that the deliveries from North Korea to Russia is the same consideration.
Now I am not privy to the agreements between the buyers and sellers, but what I would do is to buy the shells with a price guarantee on resupply of brand new shells. Just so, as the price of the new shells on order is the same as what is being offered for old shells.

It is a surprise (?) to me that those shells have not reached Ukraine as of yet. My cousin was chief on "Krudt Madsens" shipping line, that specialised in explosives transport as a reliable shipping line. And I mean chief and NOT chef, though his not inconsiderable girth could raise that suspicion.
I also think the closing of the Great Belt for half a day (officially due to a malfunction of the missiles on board of a Danish frigate).
Furthermore I think the blocade of trucks to Ukraine through Poland was orchestrated to clear the way for the ammo transport.
So, yes, I think there are more shells in Ukraine than publicly announced. But these shells should be as far away from Ukraine as possible for as long as possible. No reason to tell the russians otherwise.
The point being: It is Putin and the Russian Army that is pressed for time. They also know, that a shell-shortage is a window of opportunity. It is more Putin's "It's Now or Never" moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkMVscR5YOo

But let's see if the victory parade in Moscow will not be a farce. You can say about Zelensky what You want, but he knows how to stage a performance.

Hmmm... jeg kan heller ikke finde den egentlige grund til at Lentfers fyring.....

Som skrevet andet steds:

Well, what I think is that the delay in delivery of the F-16 is not due to the training of Ukrainians. There are more factors:

a) Building infrastructure in Ukraine for the jets, so they can be protected. And protection for the technical staff. There is no doubt that the Ukrainian air force is observing that: Especially after the walloping the russian air for has taken. Placing valuable asset in scant protection - generally NO protection - is a lack of foresight.
Now despite the clamours to the contrary - the F-16 is not particularly picky about runways etc. I do not think the F-16 will be based at existing air stations. A straight streach of road will do.
The airfields will have to be protected, which is why I think the Gepards have been ordered.
The great bonus is that the russians are searching for those airfields as we speak - and there will be a lot of them. They will provide a considerable diversionally target from civilian targets. There will have to be dummies placed - even at diversionary airfield. Firefighting equipment (they are great for clearing of cluster mines.

b) The delivery of F-35 to Nato countries has not been rapid. So the F-16 cannot be handed over before those are in place.

Belgierne har fremrykket leverancen af deres med ca. et år, hvorfor man må formode, at anlægsarbejdet skrider pænt frem.