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'.

$170billion have been allocated to assisting 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

While your own people can't afford treatment and die of treatable illnesses, weird choice of fight.

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).

Comments like this highlight how much some people are getting brainwashed

Pissed at who, though?

Either way, this sentiment ignores the point in the text about war related profits.

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

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.

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%

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’.

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.