By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In 2025, Denmark and Norway will collectively invest €178 million in Ukrainian arms, expanding on a successful model of direct purchases from Ukrainian manufacturers. This follows almost €538 million in previous arms purchases funded by a combination of frozen Russian assets, and contributions from Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland. Denmark, the originator of this “Danish model,” has committed substantial further investment, including joint production of weapons systems. This initiative marks a significant expansion of international support for Ukraine’s defense industry, with Lithuania also now participating.
Read the original article here
Denmark and Norway’s planned purchase of $183 million in arms from Ukrainian manufacturers in 2025 presents a fascinating strategic and economic development in the ongoing conflict. The decision to source weapons directly from the country actively using them is a shrewd move, effectively supporting Ukraine’s war effort while simultaneously boosting its domestic arms industry. This approach circumvents the potential restrictions and higher costs associated with procuring weapons from Western manufacturers. It’s a streamlined system, directly channeling resources to the front lines while simultaneously fostering economic growth within a nation facing immense challenges.
The economic benefits extend beyond simply providing Ukraine with necessary weaponry. This arrangement offers a substantial economic stimulus for Ukraine, fostering the growth of its defense sector and contributing to its overall economic recovery. The lower labor costs in Ukraine compared to Western nations mean that the same financial investment yields a significantly larger quantity and potentially different kinds of arms. This effectively maximizes the impact of the financial contribution, providing more firepower for the same investment, compared to purchasing from other nations.
Concerns about Ukraine’s capacity to maintain defensive lines and its soldier count are understandable. However, the success of a war of attrition often hinges on sustained access to weaponry, and this deal could be seen as an essential part of sustaining the defense. While the number of soldiers is an important consideration, sufficient weaponry is undeniably necessary for those soldiers to fight effectively. The deal does not address staffing issues directly, but by providing weapons, it supports those who are actively fighting. It focuses on the means by which Ukrainians defend themselves, while accepting the need for the Ukrainians to manage manpower challenges independently.
The comment about “innocent people” dying raises the sensitive and complex issue of civilian casualties in war. Any loss of innocent life is undoubtedly tragic, and the devastating impact of conflict on civilian populations should never be overlooked. However, it is important to remember that the current conflict is largely a result of the actions of Russia, which initiated an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. While this does not diminish the suffering of innocent Ukrainians, it places the responsibility for the conflict and the associated loss of life squarely on the aggressor.
The idea that Ukraine is somehow responsible for prolonging the war by not surrendering, is a misrepresentation of the situation. A negotiated peace settlement that includes fair and equitable terms would be greatly preferred by most, but this kind of peace cannot come from forced surrender. Instead, resistance and continued defense are critical to preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty, its people, and its national identity. The international community is providing support to help ensure this outcome.
The suggestion that millions of Ukrainian citizens could simply handle the conflict without foreign aid ignores the scale of the Russian invasion. The brutal realities of war, including the significant losses suffered by the Ukrainian military and civilian population, highlight the critical need for ongoing external support in the form of both financial and military aid. While a rapid resolution is desirable, a forced surrender would have devastating long-term consequences, particularly considering the historic implications of relinquishing national sovereignty.
The claim that substantial sums of Western aid are “unaccounted for” is a serious allegation that should be substantiated with verifiable evidence. While oversight mechanisms for aid packages can certainly be improved, the absence of evidence does not equal evidence of mismanagement. There are established channels through which these funds flow, and accusations of widespread misappropriation require strong supporting evidence to be taken seriously. The assertion that this is somehow a normal or tolerable situation in war is troubling. The need for robust oversight and transparency in managing aid is indisputable, and the allegations should be appropriately investigated, not simply dismissed.
Finally, the comparison between this strategy and the domestic arms production capacity of the United States misses a key point. The United States possesses a vastly different industrial and economic infrastructure compared to Ukraine. The US-based approach, while possessing its advantages, is not necessarily replicable in every context. The Danish and Norwegian decision is a strategic response to the specific needs and circumstances of the conflict, reflecting the realities on the ground, rather than an indictment of other approaches. It is an appropriate solution given the unique situation in Ukraine.