Nato, Norge, Danmark og Island.

According to Panorama Nyheter, the Norwegian government proposed increasing aid to Ukraine by 5 billion Norwegian kroner (about $477 million) this year and providing at least 15 billion Norwegian kroner (about $1.4 billion) annually until 2030.

Oppositionen skrev:However, the opposition Liberal Party, while supporting increased aid to Ukraine, expressed disappointment with the government’s proposal, arguing, “Our goal should be for the war to end long before 2030 and for Norway to provide as much support as possible. The government’s proposal means that we will still be giving much less than neighboring countries like Denmark.”

The point is rather that Denmark has no National debt to speak of and does not have inflation worthy of the designation. That means the sovereign bond is expensive. Denmark can have precisely the inflation it wants. The inflation cannot raise, due to the fact, that Denmark is a net exporter of energy and earns money hand over fist - and now there is no energy project imaginable that cannot be funded. As an oil, gas and electricity exporter Norway is in a comparable situation. Norway WILL have a certain amount of inflation, because all their hydropower has been sold to the norwegean consumers at a rediculously low price - and should be sold to Germany and Sweden at a much higher price.

Now the seized Russian asset are frosen into a trust fund, that require the safest possible placement of the principal - at the moment no other than Denmark can offer security as safe. No inflation and no need for the debt. Well that calls for expensive sovereign bonds.

Denmark is able to invest the money in Ukraine, while running no risk, as the bonds issued to the trust funds can be kept in the Central Bank as collateral in case Ukraine does not pay back. Furthermore as a creditor Denmark gains control over the way the money is spend.

Investment in Ukraines war industry is particularly attractive for Denmark, for the following reasons:

1) Ukrainian arms production will be a great "price-adjuster" on the manufacturers for the weapons we want and need. Swedish weapons are of a good quality, but as all swedes are crooks, they are rather pricy. So a sharpening of the price-pensil is called for - and Sweden will get the volume production needed to bring down production cost. Investment in swedish production through loans at a reasonable interest rate will help as well.
The Buhdana gun cost about 1/4 of other comparable guns. It might not be the best, but if we have to pay more - you bloody well have to come up with some very convincing features.

2) Investing in long range ukrainian missiles that can attack russian armed forces installations and oil terminals will mean that the ""shadow-fleet" will have nowhere to load cargo. Denmark cannot blow up the installations around Sct. Petersburg and Khaliningrad, nor can we close the Belts - without being at war.
But if Ukraine gets a surplus of long range missiles - well, one location to place them would be in russias face - and butt. The demolishing of the Russian oil facilities is so much in Ukraines very narrow interest, that it requires no specific explanation.

• Man har fået fastlagt opgavefordelingen i det arktiske.
  Man har fået klarlagt sårbarhederne i Nordatlanten og hvordan man skal håndtere dem.
• Man får Island ud af klemme, de havde bragt sig selv i. Der skal bruges penge på Island - javel; men det bliver ikke på en skala som Yokohama - eller Subic Bay.
  Island er perfekt til at være hjemsted for en flådekommando - alle kender alle på Island og det er overordentligt vanskeligt for russerne at få infiltreret dér.
• Man får buret resterne af den russiske arktiske flåde (med alt, hvad den kunne omfatte) inde på Kola-halvøen.
  At russerne har måttet tigge kineserne om assistance er meget betegnende.
  
• Tilsyneladende skal afløseren af Thetis-klassen bygges på et finsk væft?

Som skrevet andet steds skrev:Hmm... the use of North Korean troops in Ukraine and change of president in the USA is not wrong as a motivation and timer of the ATACMS (the yanks have always had weird acronyms), but hardly the whole truth. Governments and civil servants generally do not lie, but they never tell the whole truth.

It is a permission that has been a long time in coming and has had serious preparations.

1) The multinational combat group (the list of participant countries is as long as my arm - and I have been known to drag my knuckles on the ground while walking) has after a major exercise been upgraded to a brigade making it the divisional reserve of the division in Latvia.
Secondly there has just been a major naval exercise in the Baltic which could block the russian ports in the Baltic.

2) This means there will be a permanent Nato division in the Baltic Nations with each nations contribution rotating. And thus a permanent Nato military presense in the Baltic.

3) The seized russian assets in Europe are now available for investment in defense. The assets will be invested in prime bonds - sovereign bonds at very low yield (and long maturity) for nations without significant inflation. The governments are thus free to invest considerable sums in defense with "russian assets" as collateral. The front runners are Holland, Norway and Denmark which are all making a lot of money with the high oil prices.
The main problem for the USA in this connection is that american consumer will experience high energy prices (fuelling - litterarily - the inflation in the USA), simply because the american oil industry will sell oil on the international market. So the USA here has a political conundrum. A fight between the consumers and the oil industry.

4) American weapons are not bad, but European arms production is picking up - big time.
The Leopard 2 is in production and is about to cut the price of a modern battle tank - to a large extend because the financing is indirectly by long term sovereign bonds. The yield of the 10 year US sovereign bond is 4.44 %, where a 10 year german sovereign bond is 2.34% - the danish 10 year even yields 2.17%. This is due to the low inflation in Europe - that will only improve by lower energy cost. The second hand price of a Leopard 2 is about half of a brand new one. And the A7+ is a very tarted up second hand. Point being: The Leopard 2 is cheaper than the Abrams for any army that needs a top notch main battle tank. And there is not a pressing need for tanks, as the Leopard 2 losses in Ukraine have been very low - and the crew survives (which is a not insignificant benefit, as training on tanks is far from cheap).
The swedish CV90 is set to become the standard Nato IFC-vehicle with a new price a pittance compared to a tank. Sweden is also license producing them in Ukraine. And a considerable order book is on hand.
Artillery - well here the various systems are in troop trials in Ukraine, but the general tendency is that putting a gun on a protected truck chassis is not that expensive. And Denmark is investing in local production, where a gun will cost about 1/4 of a gun with bells and whistles and lots of kitchen sinks - and still be much better than the opponent.
In Artillery the real clincher is the ammunition and the most effective cost saving there is: HITTING the bloody target.

The ATACMS is priced at about 1 million USD and a Storm Shadow about the same.