Norway rethinks €1.7 trillion sovereign fund to boost support for Ukraine
Norway rethinks €1.7 trillion sovereign fund to boost support for Ukraine
The Nordic country has so far spent €3.35 billion on aid to Ukraine, paling in comparison to its Nordic counterparts Denmark and Sweden.
Norway is considering tapping its sovereign wealth fund to dramatically increase its support for Ukraine amid signs that US military backing is waning. Europe is in crisis mode after a bitter clash between Trump and Zelenskyy at the White House, and the Trump administration is reportedly considering cutting off all military supplies to Ukraine. Norway is sitting on €1.7 trillion in the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, including an estimated €109 billion in war-related profits from increased gas prices in 2022 and 2023. The Nordic country has so far spent €3.35 billion on support to Ukraine - an amount described on Thursday as "pathetic" and "reprehensible" by the editors of major Swedish and Danish newspapers, whose countries, according to the same data, have contributed €5.41 billion and €8.05 billion respectively. "Norway is one of the few countries that has large amounts of money readily available, and we must therefore multiply our support for Ukraine immediately," Liberal Party leader Guri Melby said on Saturday.
Honestly Norway could equal Russia's entire military budget for the year without anyone in Norway noticing any changes to their daily lives.
I wish my taxes in the US could be sent straight up to Ukraine since the Orange Moran and the Nazis got rid of every program that our taxes used to benefit us. I don't want a penny going to those monsters.
Slava Ukraine!
Move to Texas or wherever the taxes aren't paid and then just start sending money to Ukraine
edit: sorry i forgot to add /s
$170billion have been allocated to assisting Ukraine.
While your own people can't afford treatment and die of treatable illnesses, weird choice of fight.
Socialized healthcare would be cheaper and better tgan the current system, and the surplus that niw goes to people like Brian Thompson could go to Ukraine.
Thanks for pointing out another source of aid dollars.
While sending billions to Israel for bombing civilians?
Get real.
LOL imagine if the US Republican government would do a single thing that would help reduce the cost of health care, improve disease or health research, or even reduce taxes for anyone not making millions a year.
Your argument is so fake. Just the latest directive from the Kremlin.
On this episode of false dichotomy...
Weird dichotomy, when there's more than enough wealth to take care of both, if it were managed sensibly.
The leader of the Greens, who are currently polling at 2.7%, reiterated their proposal that Norway should pledge €85.5 billion to Ukraine.
This is unlikely to go through, but it's very nice to see the green pushing boundaries, that absolutely can be pushed if there's a political will to do it.
That amount is HUGE!! And alone would almost match USA total contribution throughout the war, both civil and militarily.Norway is among the largest donors to Ukraine. We have so far committed at least NOK 167 billion (€14.7 billion) in support until 2030,
So Norway has already decided to give more than they did in the past.
We currently have a proposal in the Storting to increase support by 100 billion Norwegian kroner this year," Sveinung Rotevatn, deputy chair and responsible for financial policy in the Liberal Party, told Euractiv.
This is equivalent to €8.6 billion, this is a very big donation when seen per capita, although Norway is very rich, Norway is still a relatively small country.
Very nice, exactly the signal The Free World needs now. Now, that the previous leader vanished in a puff of Kreml propaganda.
It's now more than ever at stake wether Ukraine can fend off the invasion (the outcome of which is another signal to autocrats eyeing future invasions, for example Taiwan, Transnistria*). It's a question.
One answer, one possible scenario is that each individual EU country feels overwhelmed to shoulder the additional burden. Or that the Union cannot muster enough support to replace the U.S. This scenario can be self-reinforcing. If it seems likely that the combined response would still be insufficient, a plausible outcome is everybody holding back, which already would favor the Russian aggression.
So this is why I want to highlight how much good news this is, because it's exactly the opposite kind of example. Literally stepping up.
*) Transnistria: Edited thanks to a comment, original wrongly said 'Tasmania'.
Increasing aid to Ukraine has been heavily debated in EU, and they've come up with ways to increase funding in general from EU countries. And they have already messaged solidarity in increased aid.
The meetings in Paris led by Macron and today in London led by Starmer are obviously about how to help Ukraine more. And apart from European countries, they also Included Canada with Trudeau.Whether we can compensate completely for the lack of US aid remains to be seen, but it seems clear that there is a very strong political will among Ukrainian allies to do so.
Trump will say, "Thank me! See make them pay for it!" Even though this puts us at greater risk in the future. 🤮
Urgh disgusting. Glad to see the EU and Canada step up now more than ever.
On a personal level I would be pissed if had saved money for decades and had to piss it away by blowing up orcs because the fucks can't stay in Mordor.
On a personal level, I would be pissed if my country was being invaded by a common enemy and all the other nations in the world ignored us and let us die and lose a bunch of territory after pretending they gave a shit for a few years.
Russia is a large country with proven animosity for various countries and global organizations. They will not stop at Ukraine. Do you really believe the Russian justification for this war is true? This is an existential threat to the EU and Norway is not acting like it.
To be perfectly honest, Norway should remember where that money actually comes from (petroleum) and who will help them protect it should it ever be threatened by an entity such as Russia (with whom they share a border).
Pissed at who, though?
Either way, this sentiment ignores the point in the text about war related profits.
Earmarking the war profits for the war, as well as reconstruction, seems to be quite sensible.
can they legaly extract money from that fund?
You wouldn't have to extract anything if you use the funds as collateral for a loan. Not that I understand anything about how they run their country and this financial institution.
Kind of. The amount that can be spent annually is regulated by law. I don't remember the exact figure, but the budget can not rely on more that N% of these funds. I don't remember how much N is, but it's reasonably low. The reason is twofold:
- Retain the value of the fund.
- Don't make the state budget depend on it too much.
It is entirely possible to change this number of percent by a majority at the parlament.
Source: Am noggie
EDIT: The percentage that can be used follows the profit, which is estimated at 3-4%
Are you really asking if they legally can spend their own money?
Of course they can, there's an agreed upon principle to only spend 3-4% of it per year, but if they want to, obviously they can change that.Yes, the rule is up to 4% of annual proceeds can go into the national budget for covering spending. That rule, however, is arbitrary nonsense and only serves to limit the size and scale of investments on the budget.
The actual limiting factor is that the law states that the purpose of the fund is to save for the benefit of future generations. That’s something they will have to navigate. Personally I would like for there to be a mechanism that basically requires a ‘business case’ outlining how any proposed investment/spending will align with that stated aim of the fund. Making such a case here should be pretty straightforward, as allowing one of our neighbouring countries to militarily invade and conquer their neighbours wouldn’t be good for said ‘future generations’.
Yes, the rule is up to 4% of annual proceeds can go into the national budget for covering spending. That rule, however, is arbitrary nonsense and only serves to limit the size and scale of investments on the budget.
The actual limiting factor is that the law states that the purpose of the fund is to save for the benefit of future generations.
It sounds to me like 4% is what they've guesstimated as being the maximum safe amount that can still fulfill that sustainable spending goal. I might call that "arguable," but I wouldn't call it "arbitrary."