By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Norwegian government unveiled its draft state budget for 2026, prioritizing security and emergency preparedness. The budget includes NOK 70 billion (€6 billion) earmarked for military support to Ukraine, reflecting a continued commitment to the Nansen Support Programme. An additional NOK 4.2 billion (€360 million) will be allocated to bolster the armed forces as part of a long-term plan. This commitment follows previous allocations, including approximately NOK 7 billion (€595 million) for air defense and contributions to the PURL mechanism for supplying American weapons.
Read the original article here
Norway wants to allocate about €6bn for military support to Ukraine, a truly significant commitment that’s generating a lot of positive buzz. This figure, when you consider Norway’s relatively smaller population, is quite striking. Someone calculated that it’s the equivalent of the United States providing a staggering €366 billion in aid – a truly eye-opening comparison that puts Norway’s contribution into perspective.
It seems to be widely agreed that this aid is more than justified, particularly given the economic benefits Norway has reaped from the disrupted European gas supply, thanks to the ongoing conflict. Many are applauding Norway for stepping up and supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia. The general sentiment is that this is a just cause, a shared struggle against a common adversary.
The discussion then shifts to the practicalities of the support. There’s a strong desire that the aid isn’t just financial, but that it includes the provision of actual military equipment and weaponry. This is seen as more impactful than simply sending money. The sentiment is that, to be truly effective, it needs to translate into tangible resources on the ground, enabling Ukraine to defend itself more effectively.
Considering Norway’s overall financial position, the €6 billion commitment is certainly feasible. Norway is exceptionally wealthy, especially when considering the size of its population, thanks to its considerable oil and gas reserves. It’s easy to see that the government is in a strong position to allocate such a substantial sum without crippling its own budget. In fact, the state’s overall budget for the year 2026 is already predicted to be around €200 billion.
The conversation acknowledges the inherent complexities of delivering aid. Supplying and shipping military equipment, and having it ready for immediate use, is a logistical challenge that should not be underestimated. It’s easy to declare a willingness to increase the military budget; the real test is in executing the delivery and deployment of resources effectively.
There’s a feeling that Norway’s contribution is also a good investment, considering its economic benefits. Some individuals have commented on this point, citing the windfall profits that Norway has acquired thanks to the rise in oil prices due to the war. The overall response to Norway’s commitment is overwhelmingly positive, with many praising the nation’s generosity and support.
Others have highlighted the significant economic windfall Norway has experienced in recent years, thanks to high oil prices stemming from the disruption of Russian energy supplies to Europe. They argue that this financial gain provides the country with the capacity and the moral imperative to support Ukraine.
One person mentions that this commitment represents approximately 3% of Norway’s federal budget. This comparison to the US is very interesting. Many people are saying that a similar commitment from the United States, based on the percentage of its federal budget, would be monumental. That kind of commitment is a huge deal.
When compared to the money Norway has made due to the war, some believe that this support may be a good investment. They propose a comparison based on the revenues Norway has gained due to the Ukraine war.
Overall, the reaction is one of widespread admiration. It’s clear that people believe Norway is acting responsibly and generously in a time of crisis. The sentiment of the people seems to be that this aid is both morally right and strategically sound.