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.

  • Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Honestly Norway could equal Russia’s entire military budget for the year without anyone in Norway noticing any changes to their daily lives.

  • teamevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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!

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      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

      • 10001110101@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        13 hours ago

        You still pay taxes in those states, just not income. Most people will pay more taxes in those states compared to places like California (not the rich, of course). Texas chose a system of sales taxes (state and local), which act like flat-taxes, which put more burden on lower income people.

        • Mister Bean@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Out of curiosity, could you live and work in Texas but do all your shopping outside to pay the absolute bare minimum in taxes?

          • 10001110101@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Hmm, I guess theoretically. I bet towns or businesses close to eachother over a state border do something to equalize prices. Or I guess the businesses in the lower taxed state would just raise their prices because they can and still get business.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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.

      • msage
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 hours ago

        While sending billions to Israel for bombing civilians?

        Get real.

      • ManixT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          38
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes but how’s that relevant to the topic at hand?

          Topic of hand is sending all of your (mismanaged or otherwise) wealth overseas while

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      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’.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        23 hours ago

        (the outcome of which is another signal to autocrats eyeing future invasions, for example Taiwan, Tasmania)

        Wait, what? What autocrat is eyeing Tasmania?

        • Spzi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Oops, thanks. Meant Transnistria (to which the answer would be Putin, although I guess you would not have asked if I had not made that mistake). Sometimes, the letters in the middle of a word do seem to matter.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

  • TechAnon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 day ago

    Trump will say, “Thank me! See make them pay for it!” Even though this puts us at greater risk in the future. 🤮

    • Daelsky@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Urgh disgusting. Glad to see the EU and Canada step up now more than ever.

  • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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).

      • tane@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Right? Imagine referring to an entire people as “orcs” and coming out thinking you’re not completely propagandized

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Dehumanization.

          As much as I disapprove of Russia’s behavior, I have alot in common with the working class in the country. If only we could cast off these parasites we call leaders and find a way towards true ever lasting peace.

          Divided we are conquered, together we are free.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    Earmarking the war profits for the war, as well as reconstruction, seems to be quite sensible.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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%

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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.

    • BJHanssen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      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’.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        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.”

        • BJHanssen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          It’s arbitrary. The reasoning is based around avoiding inflationary effects, but that’s based on a stupidly simplistic and wrong-headed idea of how inflation works.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Even with the current limit they can help Ukraine quite a lot without hurting their long term goal too much.

        • Lorill@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          It is not that simple. While the country is rich and getting richer, it’s population is getting relatively poorer. Housing is at an all-time high (as it is in so many places in the so called developed world). More and more complain about food prices, especially fresh vegetables and for some reason, chocolate. The country is completely dependent on imports.

          They restricted the budget allowed to communes, which not only stopped their planned investments, but had to cut several services such as school and culture programs, mostly in the less dense areas.

          Add to that the relatively weak krone, and you get a very strong feeling of moving down. This pushes their local populist right wing party (FrP) high.

          Many would not understand the remote support while they experience those cuts.

          • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 day ago

            The reason chocolate is expensive is because the last couple of harvest were a horrifying preview of what global warming is gonna do. Cocoa, now coffee harvests are failing. My pessimistic side would say: eat chocolate now, while you can. Those prices are not coming back down in our lifetime.

            “late 2023, failed cacao harvests have contributed to a major jump in cocoa prices on the New York and London markets where cocoa is traded, reported The Guardian.”

            Oops.

            • Lorill@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Not negating the price hike, but for whatever reason I don’t see people from other countries complaining about chocolate so specifically. In France for example, housing, fuel and electricity are big topics, but chocolate is not.

          • BJHanssen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            Thing about social democratic bureaucracy is that it tends to end up being extremely rigid with politicians who are particularly entrenched in this rigid system of rules. So in these states, things like ‘not hurting long term goals too much’ matters because going at cross purposes with legally stated aims in any way is more than good enough reason to not do it at all. You don’t get to interpret your way around the law in states like Norway.

            Add to this that the same politicians also have entirely forgotten what social democracy is supposed to be - maintaining a capitalistic market economy while leveraging state power to counteract its negative social effects and ensure the social security of the people - in favour of some idea that it’s actually just a set of basic institutions that were invented one to two hundred years ago that don’t need any kind of updating outside of just the bare minimum of maintenance, and… well, you end up with states that run relatively well but increasingly keep creaking at the seams, everything increasingly underfunded, with politicians who seem convinced they can’t actually do anything apart from tinkering at the edges.

            This breeds discontent and political distrust. And in such conditions, it doesn’t really matter if the vast majority would want us to support good causes abroad, people will still be angry about it because it feels like they are getting stepped on in favour of someone else. They couldn’t tell you exactly why they feel that way, so they grab on to the nearest idea - cognitively speaking - that they can spin an understandable narrative about. Immigrants is the obvious one. Political elites playing their games the obvious next one. Then comes the common misunderstandings about economics, especially where inflation is relevant.

            Basically our politicians have put themselves in a corner they are unequipped to get themselves out of, and everything they do ends up producing backlash one way or another.

  • turnip@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    What sentence in this article says who is suggesting this, I can’t find it.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      It’s indirectly referring to the sovereign fund, but (emphasis mine):

      “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.

      Norway’s support should be increased “significantly” and “fast”, Norway’s former Conservative prime minister, Erna Solberg, said in a statement. “The government can safely assume there is will in Parliament to give more,” she added.

      The leader of the Greens, who are currently polling at 2.7%, reiterated their proposal that Norway should pledge €85.5 billion to Ukraine.

      • turnip@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Ah I see it just infers it will dip into it and doesn’t provide much detail, thank you kind sir.

  • commander@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Guys, we can only throw so much money at war before it stops having an effect.

    Ukraine has recruitment problems. They have moral problems. Nobody wants to fight in a losing war. They’ve all seen their friends die. They’ve all heard stories about how awful combat is. None of them want a part of it anymore.

    It’s unfortunate, but we have to accept the reality that real people are dying. They don’t get to respawn after a few seconds like in a video game. Each death results in more grieving friends and family.

    Let’s not fall for the conmen that say giving them more money will result in a Ukrainian victory.

    Here’s a video of Ukrainians kidnapping their own citizen to send to die in war: https://kaotic.com/video/6863212c_20250228144833_t

    • Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Ukraine doesn’t want to use the same meatwave tactics as Russia. It’s not the same as having a recruitment problem. Ukrainian soldiers are also way more motivated than the Russians who, are advancing very slowly and at huge cost.

      The reason Russia is advancing at all is because Russia is prepared to suffer catastrophic numbers of dead and wounded to take a field and Ukraine is prepared to loose a field or two if it means conserving their population. The two methods for Ukraine to regain their territory are to either use a massive portion of their population in meatwave attacks or to cause a collapse of government within Russia. The latter is much quicker and more effective long term.

      Russia has a population of 140ish million people all of which are viewed as expendable by Putin. Recruiting more meat won’t help. Long range ordinance to fuck up russas logistics routes and oil infrastructure will absolutely help. So shut your cock-pocket and scurry back to your basement in the Kremlin.

      • commander@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s not the same as having a recruitment problem.

        The absolute delusion among you people is truly a sight to behold.

        I can tell who paid attention in history class, and who did not.

    • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      This guy already blocked me as he believes women cannot handle being treated like adults and I called him out for it. Just block this fool and move on.

      • Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        If I were the only one who had to read his nonsense, I would. The problem is that the Kremlin’s propaganda machine doesn’t rest. And it’s important that people see rational voices counteracting the disinformation. Otherwise more and more people are going to start believing the propaganda.