The building of non-profit public housing in the Nordic hermit kingdom has plummeted, falling from 7,000 units annually just five years ago to a projected 2,800 this year. The core of the problem is a statutory spending cap set by the central government mandating a maximum cost per square meter for new public housing. The stated purpose is to keep rents in public housing low but with construction costs and land prices soaring, housing associations find it impossible to build within this financial straitjacket.

“The biggest obstacle to building more public housing is that the so-called maximum amount has not been raised to match the massive increase in inflation and rising prices for land and building materials,” said Jens Elmelund, Managing Director of KAB, Copenhagen’s largest housing association to the media Arbejderen. He described the situation as a de facto construction stop.

The crisis is exacerbated by rigid neoliberal rules banning municipalities from selling public land at a discount to housing associations to ensure adequate housing for citizens. A directive from the central government mandates that municipalities must sell land at the highest market price, citing a requirement for “economically responsible management.” This forces non-profit builders to compete with deep-pocketed private developers.

Since 2015, Danish municipalities have had the power to require that up to 25 percent of new private developments be reserved for public housing. In practice, the policy has failed. Enforcement is weak, and local authorities have no power to demand that public and private units be built simultaneously.

A 2024 housing report from the City of Copenhagen found that the required public housing was completed or underway in only 26 of 44 new local development plans. In nine of the 44 projects, “no public housing has been realized nor are there any current plans for it.”

Private developers routinely secure permits by pledging to build public housing, only to construct the lucrative private units first. The construction of public housing units is then postponed, often indefinitely, with designated plots being left empty. The City of Copenhagen has requested that the central government grant municipalities the power to enforce simultaneous construction of public and for-profit housing, a request that has so far been refused.

Public housing in Denmark is built, owned, and operated by democratic, non-profit housing associations. With strictly cost-based rents, economy of scale and no profit motive, the model is significantly more efficient than the private rental market. Data shows average rents in modern public housing are 28 percent lower than on the for-profit rental market.

This demand for public housing is staggering. In Copenhagen KAB alone has 200,000 households on its waiting list. In Aarhus, the list has 95,000, and on the island of Funen, 60,000 households are waiting for public housing. In some cases, individual public housing units have waiting lists stretching into the thousands.

The crisis is further compounded by the Social Democrat-led right-wing regime’s openly racist “ghetto laws”, targeting public housing areas in large cities with ethnically diverse residents and some of the cheapest rents, the so-called “ghettos”. Through large renovations, forced sales to private real-estate speculants and demolition of housing blocks, authorities are seeking to drive up rents in these areas, targeted by explicitly racial criteria, in an attempt to make the demographic makeup whiter and richer.

The political response to the public housing crisis has been marked by inaction. The Social Democrat-led right-wing regime, has promised a comprehensive public housing policy proposal “soon,” a promise first made when it took power in a bloodless transition in 2022. As lord mayor of Copenhagen Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, the current head of the Social Democrat-controlled Ministry Of Social Affairs and Housing, argued for raising the spending cap. Today, she warns that doing so might drive up rents. “When you raise the spending cap to get more public housing, you are simultaneously passing some of the costs on to tenants. And that is something I am of course worried about,” she said recently to state media TV2 Metropol.

Andersen’s concerns are not unfounded. New public housing, though cheaper than private for-profit units, is already far from affordable for many and just raising the spending cap would only worsen that problem. Any lasting solution would require confronting the country’s decades-long adherence to neoliberal market orthodoxy. It appears highly unlikely that the regime is willing to do this.

In Copenhagen Social Democratic candidate for the upcoming local elections Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil, fighting to defend her party’s century-long stranglehold on the lord mayoralty against challenges from the pro-democratic opposition, is now campaigning on a platform of raising the spending cap. The pro-democracy opposition accuse her of repackaging proposals she herself ignored as housing minister. “It is a copy of the proposals we have been pushing for,” said Line Barfod, a councilor for the moderate pro-democratic Red-Green Alliance, in a statement to state media TV2 in which she accused Rosenkrantz-Theil of having “sabotaged” efforts to expand public housing when she had the authority to act.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Party in Copenhagen appears to inhabit an alternative reality. “We basically think there are too many rental apartments,” said councilor Jens-Kristian Lütken to state media TV2 Metropol as he argued for prioritising owner-occupied housing in local planning instead.

The consequences of the mismanagement of the housing crisis are stark. Public housing provides homes for the workers—nurses, teachers, service workers, elder care providers—who keep the city functioning. Without renewed investment metropolitan areas could soon become inaccessible to the very workforce that sustains them.

With the political establishment unwilling to confront its own market orthodoxy, the homes not being built today will be missing for decades to come, leaving Denmark’s cities increasingly uninhabitable for those who make their wheels turn.

Sources:

• Almene boligprojekter ligger brak, Arbejderen, October 20th 2025
• Rosenkrantz-Theil anklages for at kopiere forslag, hun syltede som minister , TV2 (state media), October 29th 2025
• Kommende udspil vil adressere mangel på almene boliger, siger minister, TV2 (state media), October 30th 2025
• København har kæmpe udfordringer med almene boliger - og et støvet ord er problemet, TV2 Kosmopol (state media), September 11th 2025

The U.S. Army later confirmed the move, but denied it was a sign of lessened commitment to NATO. Depending on operations and exercises, around 80,000-100,000 U.S. troops are usually present on European soil. NATO allies have expressed concern that the Trump administration might drastically cut their numbers and leave a security vacuum as European countries confront an increasingly aggressive Russia. The administration has been reviewing its military “posture” in Europe and elsewhere, but U.S. officials have said that the findings of the review were not expected to be known before early next year. NATO has recently been bulking up its defensive posture on its eastern flank bordering Belarus, Russia and Ukraine after a series of airspace violations by drones, balloons and Russian aircraft.

European build-up

The Romanian defense ministry said that the U.S. decision will “stop the rotation in Europe of a brigade that had elements in several NATO countries,” including at a base in Romania. It said in a statement that about 1,000 U.S. troops will remain stationed in Romania. As of April, more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel were estimated to be deployed there. A brigade usually numbers anywhere from 1,500 to 3,000 troops. Romania’s Defense Minister Ionut Mosteanu said the decision reflects Washington’s shift “toward the Indo-Pacific” region, and that allied troop numbers would remain above the number before Russia’s full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine. “Our strategic partnership is solid, predictable, and reliable,” he said in a news conference.

In a post on X, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said the U.S. “remains committed to Romania.” “Our strong presence in and enduring commitment to Europe remains steadfast, including support for Eastern Sentry,” a NATO operation along the eastern flank, he wrote. He did not mention the troop drawdown. After the war started in 2022, NATO bolstered its presence on Europe’s eastern flank by sending additional multinational battle groups to Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia. Many more European troops are now stationed there. The ministry statement said that the U.S. “decision also took into account the fact that NATO has strengthened its presence and activity on the Eastern Flank, which allows the United States to adjust its military posture in the region.”

101st Airborne troops to fly out

In a statement later on Wednesday, U.S. Army Europe and Africa said that the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division will return to its base in Kentucky as previously planned but that no other U.S. troops would rotate into Europe to replace it. “This is not an American withdrawal from Europe or a signal of lessened commitment to NATO and Article 5,” it said, in a reference to the collective security guarantee in the organization’s treaty that an attack on one ally should be considered an attack on all 32. “Rather this is a positive sign of increased European capability and responsibility. Our NATO allies are meeting President Trump’s call to take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe,” it said. It insisted that the move “will not change the security environment in Europe.”

Government officials in Poland and Lithuania, which lie further north along Europe’s eastern flank, said they had not been informed of any U.S. troop drawdown in their countries. Asked about the move, a NATO official said that “adjustments to U.S. force posture are not unusual.” Under the terms of their employment contract, the official is permitted to speak to reporters but only on condition that they not be named. The official said that even with this new adjustment, about which NATO was informed in advance, the American “force posture in Europe remains larger than it has been for many years, with many more U.S. forces on the continent than before 2022.” The official played down any security concerns, saying that “NATO and U.S. authorities are in close contact about our overall posture – to ensure NATO retains our robust capacity to deter and defend.”

The money for Lynx vehicles and Panther tanks would come from cheap so-called SAFE loans organized by the EU to help member states beef up their military strength as Russia threatens the bloc’s Eastern border. Earlier this year EU officials said they would organize the low-cost loans worth €150 billion euros for members, then announced in September that Poland had been allocated €43.7bn in loans followed by Romania with €16.7bn, France and Hungary on €16.2bn and Italy with €14.9bn, among other recipients. States have until Nov. 30 to supply the EU with details on how they will spend the cash, before funds are released in 2026. Beneficiaries cannot carry out go-it-alone procurements with the loan cash. To encourage money saving and European military synergy, the EU has told member states to team up with at least one other EU recipient to make joint arms buys.

The subject came up in Rome on Monday when Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban paid a visit to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. “The two leaders discussed the opportunities offered by the European SAFE scheme, evaluating possible synergies between Italy and Hungary to support their respective industrial and technological capabilities,” Meloni’s office said after the meeting. The two countries already have one procurement program, and one potential program in common. The first is the Lynx tracked armored vehicle developed by Rheinmetall, which Italy and Hungary are buying, assembling and adapting. The second is Rheinmetall’s new Panther main battle tank. Italy is set to purchase 272, while Hungary signed a deal with Rheinmetall in 2023 to team on development and production of the tank. An Italian defense source who spoke on condition of anonymity told Defense News that Italy’s purchases of the two platforms were candidates to be supported by SAFE loan cash.

Italy plans to buy 1,050 variants of the Lynx vehicle

the Italians have barely 200 of a their current, much less advanced IFV, and now they’re just going to pull 1000 Lynxes out of their ass?! I guess not all of these would actually be in the IFV configuration, but still. For comparison, the French have about 600 of their current IFV (which is a wheeled vehicle much simpler and less armored than typical Western fare), the Germans are going to eventually get about 400 of their new IFV (which is perhaps somewhat fancier than the Lynx), the US back in the day produced about 6.7k Bradleys (technically 2k of those were M3s, which are reconnaissance vehicles, but it’s essentially the same thing with a differently-configured troop compartment), which, in its original configuration, is again, a less advanced vehicle than the Lynx - I kind of doubt Italy’s military is anywhere near close to being comparable to a seventh of the US during the Cold War.

Western militaries will just say shit, “oh yeah actually I’m going to buy a billion tanks btw”, deeply unserious

, adding a turret built by home supplier Leonardo, while Hungary signed in 2020 to purchase around 218, with all but the first 46 to be built in Hungary. Those 46 have now been delivered. Hungary’s decision to put in for €16.2bn in SAFE loans makes it one of the largest potential beneficiaries, but that combines with Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s repeated criticism of the EU. On Monday, the same day he discussed the SAFE set-up with Italian prime minister Meloni, he also told reporters “The European Union counts for nothing.”

American company Boeing will be able to produce around 20 F-15EX fighters per year starting in fiscal year 2027, figures that matter not only for the U.S. but also for potential export customers, including Ukraine, which might one day need a wingman for the Gripen. According to a U.S. Air Force report to Congress, there’s a clear intent to maximize F-15EX procurement, with production capable of increasing to 36 aircraft annually if additional funding is provided. Boeing itself says it aims to double its current output to 24 jets per year in the coming years up from the current 12. While not insignificant, this rate is still far from sufficient. The U.S. Air Force currently plans to acquire 129 F-15EXs, with 126 expected to be delivered by the end of 2030 already nine months behind schedule. The delays stem from software issues, supply chain disruptions, and material shortages. Future production capacity could also be limited by the arrival of the sixth-generation F-47 fighter, which will likely take industrial priority.

Even at the projected rate of 24 aircraft per year, Boeing will need about five years to fulfill just the U.S. order. That means any potential foreign customers will either have to wait longer or fund an expansion in production, as U.S. military demand will always come first. Boeing expects F-15EX production to continue into the 2030s, with the aircraft expected to serve well into the 2050s. The company says that several international operators of older F-15 variants have already shown interest. Still, given the production constraints and high costs, it remains uncertain whether new buyers will commit to the F-15EX. As for Ukraine, while such a fighter could be a powerful complement to the Gripen, more accessible alternatives may be the more realistic option.