Is Denmark’s Defense Strategy the Blueprint for Europe’s Military Future?

Denmark’s bold move to fund arms production directly in Ukraine is gaining traction across Europe—offering a transparent, efficient model that could redefine defense cooperation. Could this become the new standard for Europe?

It’s not just about allocating funds to the Armed Forces—it’s about creating a fundamentally different format of cooperation. Under this model, Western partners order weapons directly from Ukrainian manufacturers and maintain parallel oversight of the production process. This approach enables swift delivery of the necessary range of military equipment, supports the Ukrainian defense industry, and minimizes corruption risks through detailed contract audits conducted by EU institutions or national governments.

Instead of continuing to look for leftover usable weapons to transfer to Kyiv, Denmark decided to invest directly in Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. The amount in question is $680 million, of which $180 million is from the Danish budget and another $400 million is from confiscated Russian assets.

This amount allows Ukrainian enterprises to plan production for a more or less medium-term perspective. At the same time, as their Ministry of Defense emphasizes, the Danes themselves are strengthening the Ukrainian Armed Forces on a larger scale and more quickly than possible through classic long tenders or the transfer of weapons from Danish warehouses, which are far from unlimited.

Origins of the Strategic Shift

According to Danish officials, this format of cooperation was chosen based on two key factors. First, Denmark’s own stockpiles of weapons are not large enough to meet Ukraine’s needs. Second, Copenhagen is seriously concerned that other countries—including NATO members—might prioritize their own arsenals or limit production to within the EU.

In that scenario, Ukrainian companies would receive fewer orders, and the pace of delivery would slow. The Danish model addresses this issue by allocating funds specifically for production in Ukraine, with Danish or international auditors' oversight. This gives Danish taxpayers confidence that their money supports tangible military projects—not waste or corruption.

Despite early skepticism, other Northern European countries have followed Denmark’s lead. At the fourth Ukraine–Northern Europe Summit, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden all expressed their intent to join the initiative. Several other EU member states are also considering directly financing Ukrainian defense contracts.

First Signs of Success

For example, Norway has already pledged $42 million, and Sweden more than $20 million, for purchasing weapons from Ukrainian manufacturers. These investments boost financial resources and establish a foundation for long-term cooperation—industrial, technological, and human.

Ukraine will be able to export finished products, expand domestic production facilities, and strengthen its research capabilities.

A key feature of the Danish model is the control mechanism, which includes oversight by European governments and private auditing firms. This system is designed to minimize corruption risks, which are often present in defense procurement. Danish authorities and other stakeholders conduct independent audits of Ukrainian contractors.

Specific companies and weapons systems that Ukraine needs most are identified, and funding is allocated accordingly—drawn from national budgets, confiscated Russian assets, or other sources. Donor experts then monitor each contract from purchasing raw materials to final testing. In Danish thinking, this strategy “kills two birds with one stone”: it ensures timely, high-quality production and enforces transparency, preventing large-scale abuse.

This model has also shown tangible results. In October 2024, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine was producing nearly 20 “Bohdana” artillery systems monthly.

That figure was only six in December 2023. The increase is significant, made possible by added funding that enabled companies to expand facilities, hire additional staff, and improve logistics.

Ukraine’s defense industry has repeatedly noted that its biggest obstacle to scaling up production has been financial. The national defense budget is already stretched thin, and international grants or military-technical assistance have often gone toward immediate needs rather than longer-term investment in manufacturing capacity.

New Trend which will Influence on Other Countries

The Danish government believes that the success of its model could serve as a blueprint for others. Unlike the transfer of equipment from depleted European or U.S. stockpiles, funding Ukrainian manufacturers addresses the problem differently. It reduces pressure on donor countries’ warehouses—while providing Ukraine with weapons tailored to its battlefield needs. In the long term, it also strengthens Ukraine’s defense industry, helping the country become more self-reliant.

Challenges and risk management 

However, the Danish model isn’t without its challenges. According to Olena Tregub, Executive Director of NAKO (the Independent Anti-Corruption Committee on Defense), international partners often cite corruption as a concern. Ukraine has established a new Defense Procurement Agency with a supervisory board to address this. It works with foreign auditors and strives to present data on all agreements as transparently as possible.

European governments have also expressed readiness to send their own experts to inspect production lines and monitor contract progress. According to The Wall Street Journal, this kind of oversight is essential to ensure that parliaments in Northern European countries remain confident in the security and legitimacy of their funding.

Denmark’s confidence in Ukrainian manufacturers is especially noteworthy. While doubts about Ukraine’s capacity to scale defense production were widespread just a year or two ago, today countries like Denmark and Norway are making major investments. The logic is simple: every army needs regular equipment upgrades—especially during an active warlike Ukraine’s.

European governments increasingly understand that Ukraine’s resistance plays a critical role in containing Russian aggression, which could otherwise spill into NATO territory. As a result, investing in Ukraine’s defense industry is viewed as a strategically sound move. The Danish model also allows for risk-sharing, as Ukrainian companies are held accountable to rigorous international standards.

Toward a New European Defense Architecture

Broadly speaking, the Danish model could lay the groundwork for a new framework of military cooperation in Europe. Previously, foreign partners mainly transferred surplus or decommissioned weapons to Kyiv, and most contract-based production happened in the United States or within the EU. Now, Ukraine is firmly on the map—not just as a recipient but as an active producer of weapons. In the future, this could lead to deeper collaboration on high-tech development, increased investment in Ukrainian research centers, and the integration of Ukraine’s defense sector into Europe’s broader security space.

Of course, sustained political will is needed—both in Ukraine and in Western capitals. Denmark is acting as a trailblazer, showing by example that direct support for Ukraine’s Armed Forces, coming straight from Ukrainian assembly lines, can be just as effective as transferring equipment from donor stockpiles. This approach also eliminates fears about “emptying NATO warehouses” and helps avoid contentious debates with countries reluctant to part with their own weapons.

Conclusion: from Small Idea to Great ImpactSo far, the international community has responded cautiously to the Danish model, but momentum is growing. The next step is for Ukraine to demonstrate that its defense industry can consistently meet contract obligations and deliver high-quality products. Oversight by European governments will be crucial to maintaining confidence in the system.

The “Danish model” presents a win-win formula: Northern European countries invest directly in Ukraine’s arms production and receive clear evidence of where the money goes and full control over the production cycle.

Ukraine, in turn, gains the resources it needs to rapidly build up its defense industry. It moves closer to a strategic goal: reduced dependence on foreign imports, faster response to frontline needs, and more substantial industrial capacity. The model has already shown results, as seen in the increased output of “Bohdana” artillery systems. If this trend continues, it could be a launchpad for larger-scale production projects across the defense sector.

What started as a Danish initiative could soon become a European standard. As the conventional war in Ukraine grinds on, the need to replenish the Armed Forces remains urgent. Countries seeking to deter further Russian aggression are now exploring new ways to help—and the Danish model offers a compelling option. It boosts Ukraine’s military strength while alleviating concerns over misused or stolen funds.

The only question is how many other European nations—and potentially the United States—will adopt this model and invest directly in Ukrainian factories and design bureaus. If the trend continues, Ukraine may soon emerge as a key regional defense producer, working closely with NATO allies. And the Danish example will have been the catalyst that made it all possible.

Bohdan Popov, Expert at Kyiv-based United Ukraine Think Tank