35 ms·
The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault. The one
by cglace 3y ago
The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault. The one bill that was blocked by Congress would be more support than Europe as a whole has provided to Ukraine to date.
While I agree that European countries should start to take their defense seriously I don't see how you fault US support of Ukraine.
- matsemann 3y agoIn terms of % GDP, USA is quite far down the list.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoAnd in % of military budget, it's near the end of the list.
- cglace 3y agoWell, of course, do you think the US is going to donate its aircraft carriers, F-35s, F-22s, B-2s, and nuke subs to Ukraine? The US isn't spending trillions on artillery rounds.
- pb7 3y agoIt’s not the US’s fault Europe spends so little on defense. You reap what you sow. If you get rolled, that’s on you and your poor planning hoping Daddy USA is going to play world police. We remember the decades of mocking for our choice of investing in defense. Enjoy your “free” healthcare while it lasts.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago"It’s not the US’s fault Europe spends so little on defense." Exactly! This crisis will probably bring nukes to Poland and hopefully Germany (Macron offered nukes several times, to safe costs, the German public sadly is anti-nuke) to make the EU independent of US protection. We then can close Ramstein, Landstuhl and Weilerbach and close air corridors for US military machines to no longer support US wars in the Middle East. European countries will stop buying US weapons and create jobs in Europe instead of US voting districts.
- egisspegis 3y ago> The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin This is not true for some time now. First google result (but there are more charts, numbers and sources): https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s... Yet whoever provided more aid is irrelevant, since it's not enough anyway. We, as a world, are observing (and doing nothing, for the most part) fourth reich coming into action.
- cglace 3y agoIt looks like your charts include things like refugee aid costs, which make up a large percentage of European aid. If you remove these costs and go strictly by military support, which is what we are talking about, then my point stands.
- joakleaf 3y agoNo it does not; You said:"The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin"... Pick "Military" only in the chart, add up the numbers of, Germany, UK, Denmark, Norway, and Netherlands, and you'll get a higher number than the US.
- cglace 3y agoSorry, I'll rephrase: the US has delivered roughly equivalent military aid to Ukraine as the rest of the world combined. Does that diminish my point? I guess that means the US cannot be trusted.
- PurpleRamen 3y agoSeems kinda unfair. USA has the biggest military complex, bigger than the rest of world combined IIRC. Naturally, can they deliver military aid faster and better than the rest of the world.
- 3y ago
- luch 3y agoHonestly what's the difference whether it's POTUS or Congress blocking the bill ? The writing on the wall is here: if Russia invades Poland, NATO article 5 or not the US will not go into full blown war with Russia. And honestly it was the European's fault to believe in this pipe dream.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago"And honestly it was the European's fault to believe in this pipe dream." Having lived through Reforger exercises, with US tanks everywhere and sonic booms every few minutes, I believe up and including Reagan it was clear the US would not let Soviet Russia invade Western Europe b/c of the resulting shift in world power. After the EU got more powerful and expanded, dynamics changed. It's unclear with the Bushes and clear that Clinton/Obama/Trump would not aid Europe.
- tokai 3y agoThat is a lie. EU and European countries has given more than double that of the US.
- cglace 3y agoIf you go by military support of Ukraine, this is not true. It's only valid if you include things like humanitarian support. If the US passes its support bill, it would be on equal footing with all aid to Ukraine from Europe, including humanitarian support.
- tokai 3y agoPlease stop spreading misinformation.
- bandyaboot 3y agoPlease stop making baseless accusations.
- genman 3y agoLet's get the facts straight https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s... Military help from EU countries is higher than US, humanitarian help is multiple times higher and so is financial help. If US passes the bill then it will somewhat catch up. IF it passes. Perhaps it decides to degrade its international standing even more instead, who knows.
- tw04 3y ago>That is a lie. EU and European countries has given more than double that of the US. Based on what number? You tell other people not to make things up, then throw out outlandish claims without citation. And as for the "by GDP number" - you all seem to be failing to take into account overall military spending by GDP. Most of Europe spends almost nothing because they rely on the US to present a threat to their potential enemies. It's a lot easier to spend 5% of your GDP on military spending for a year or two when the rest of the last 40 years it's been less than 1% because the US has been spending 4-8% YoY for the duration on top of the direct aid. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64656301 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64656301 https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...
- miroljub 3y agoThat's just something they tell you during your election campaign. The truth is a bit different, USA is good at promissing and forcing other to do, but it did very little, compared to own GDP and military abilities. Money: - EU - 85,0 Mrd. € - USA - 67,7 Mrd. € - Deutschland - 22,1 Mrd. € - Vereinigtes Königreich - 15,7 Mrd. € - Dänemark - 8,8 Mrd. € - EU: nur gemeinsame Hilfe - Quelle: Institut für Weltwirtschaft / Ukraine Support Tracker Tanks, promissed and delivered: - Polen 324 Stück 264 Stück - Niederlande 104 Stück 23 Stück - Tschechien 90 Stück 90 Stück - USA 76 Stück 23 Stück - Deutschland 55 Stück 48 Stück
- cglace 3y agoYou cherry-pick tanks as your metric? Why don't we look at the totality of American deliveries, including long-range munitions and artillery, and see who comes ahead? What equivalent of game-changing ordnance, such as the GDSLB, are European countries providing? This is why a large portion of Americans could care less about the defense of Europe. No matter what we do, it's either wrong or not enough. Meanwhile, Europe spent the last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy and neglecting its defense spending and then turned around and told the US that we don't do enough to stop Russia.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- KingOfCoders 3y agoMe: "Europe can't trust the US" You: "How dare you ....!?" Later You: "This is why a large portion of Americans could care less about the defense of Europe." That was easy. Q.E.D.
- cglace 3y agoI don't see how that means you can't trust America. A large % does not equal a majority. Look at polling to see where the majority of US sentiment lies. Similarly, if you look at surveys of Germans, you will see that a large % do not support Military aid of Ukraine, not a majority, but a large percentage. By your logic, does that mean that Ukraine cannot trust Germany?
- joakleaf 3y agoNot sure about the US providing more funding (especially not by a large margin): This chart shows EU outspending the US. https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/#:~:text=ukraine%20war,-by%20Martin%20Armstrong&text=Ukraine%27s%20largest%20military%20aid%20partner,considering%20financial%20and%20humanitarian%20support https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-huma....
- kortilla 3y agoWe’re talking about the military portion on that page.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoAnd the EU is spending more on military aid then the US. As World = EU + X and X>0 => The world is spending more on military aid then the US.
- joakleaf 3y agoThat was certainly not clear, but it is still does not fit this chart [1] Looking at Military add only: The US has provided: ~$42.2B Germany + United Kingdom + Denmark + Norway + Netherlands + Poland + EU inst.: ~$51B [1] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...
- cglace 3y agoOh man, the EU plus the rest of the world are eking it out before the US passes another spending bill. . . This also includes long-term commitments that have not yet been delivered. EU promising to provide 1 million artillery shells two years from now doesn't help Ukraine at this time.
- piva00 3y agoThe US not passing a spending bill and getting constantly deadlocked by the GOP to even table it in Congress also do not help Ukraine at this time. Also, it's not even close to a certainty that the spending bill will pass, and the chance of that happening diminishes every single day while this stupid presidential election doesn't happen.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago"The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault." I've said the US can't be trusted to keep support up. Don't twist my words.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- KingOfCoders 3y ago"by a large margin" Numbers? Source?
- TomK32 3y agoFunding to Ukraine is even more complicated than most people realize. A massive amount of the money spent for weapons to be delivered to Ukraine is produced outside Ukraine in the US, EU etc. In cases where existing vehicles and ammunition is sent it is also an opportunity for all donors to modernize their vehicles and ammunition by replacing the donated ones with new ones.
- selimthegrim 3y agoThe money is produced or the weapons?
- actionfromafar 3y agoWith fiat, both :-D
- suoduandao3 3y agoSpending a lot is not a badge of honor in an asymmetric conflict. If the US was spending more efficiently than Russia the way it did in Afghanistan, this would be sending a message to the next Putin that invading one's neighbors is a losing proposition. The US's economy suffering more than Russia's sends the opposite message.
- docmars 3y ago[flagged]
- the_why_of_y 3y agoIf US Congress decides to spend 1 billion USD on weapons for Ukraine, they will not wire 1 billion USD to a bank account in Ukraine. The US government will give > 900 million USD to US companies that build weapons in factories in the US, employing US workers who spend their salary in the US economy, boosting it. The US government will also spend a couple million USD to transport the weapons produced in the US to Ukraine.
- suoduandao3 3y agoRussia is also employing Russians to manufacture arms who spend their salary in the Russian economy. The important thing is how much value in infrastructure the government gets for the keynsian boost it's giving, since wars generally last until one side runs out of credit. The apocryphal calculus in Afghanistan was a 100 000$ US Stinger missile was generally worth one 2 000 000$ soviet helicopter. I'm sure there are US defense systems that would be similarly good tradeoffs, but I'm also sure there are difficulties in spending billions at a time on anything cost-effective. It's hard to spend large amounts of capital effectively and all that.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago> The one bill that was blocked by Congress would be more support than Europe as a whole has provided to Ukraine to date. Didn't EU just now agreed on future aid of the same amount the USA is still struggling to get through?
- Thaxll 3y agoThe US funds their own economy, most of the money they send goes back to the US economy because they produce the weapons that Ukraine purchase.
- cglace 3y agoAnd the stockpiles of artillery, long-range munitions, armor, ammo, guns, etc sent? The US really can't win. If we didn't support Ukraine we would be blasted. If we do it's because we are just trying to enrich ourselves.
- schumpeter 3y agoBecause the only winning move it not to play. This is Europe's war. Not sure why the US is involved at all. It's not like Ukraine has oil or a NATO partner.
- willvarfar 3y agoAs Viscount Cunningham famously said when he risked his fleet to evacuate troops in the Battle of Crete in 1941, 'It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition'. Which feels like how America's new insularism is undoing all the "leader of the free world" fandom that it has carefully cultivated - and profited from - in the last 80 years. Today the US has two strategic enemies - Russia and China - and two strategic partners, Nato in Europe and everyone in pacific except China. The US can spend peanuts - it really isn't a lot of money in US defence terms - backing Ukraine and using Ukrainian casualties to defeat it's strategic enemy, Russia, whilst making it's other strategic enemy, China, fear it. Or it can waver and show it's no longer the leader of the democratic world and make all it's allies in Europe and Asia not believe in it. My big fear is that it is empowering China to dare to have it's go at Taiwan in a couple of years.
- pb7 3y agoDo Europeans think the US is the leader of the free world?
- trilbyglens 3y agoIt's less about current actions and more about how mercurial and dysfunctional the US congress currently is. No one is willing to bet their sovereignty on the outcome of a US presidential election.
- hiddencost 3y agoThe delay in US aid is going to lose this war. It's unconscionable.
- BurningFrog 3y ago> The US has provided... You write in the past tense, and in that sense you're right. But the US is no longer providing that help.
- cglace 3y agoWe can barely pass a bill to continue funding OUR government. It doesn't mean it won't eventually get done.
- MrDresden 3y ago> The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault. There is nothing in the parent post to even hint that they are saying that the US is to blame for what happened. The US cannot be trusted to fulfill it's approved upon role in NATO if and when the push comes to shove (that damage to the US reputation is done). I want to make it clear that the US does not sholder this responsibility alone. Every signatory to the convention is required to come to it's allies need if needed. Europe has to get it's act together when it comes to securing its own borders, with tech and armaments produced inside said borders but in a cooperation with the US. As partners.
- david2ndaccount 3y agoUkraine is not part of NATO, so how has push come to shove?
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe very politicians blocking Ukraine support are openly talking about how NATO should be abandoned. I don't know how else you can interpret that other than making Europe doubt the US would come to her aid.
- cglace 3y agoI would say the rest of the Republicans have ignored or shrugged off his comments more than agree with them.
- mrguyorama 3y agoThat just doesn't matter as long as they caucus in unity and vote in unity. Republicans are beholden to Trump's rhetoric so they can get the MAGA vote and keep their damn jobs. That's why they keep falling in line no matter how many times they say "no no we really shouldn't do what Trump says". They were perfectly willing to kill a bill they all agreed was good for the US because Trump said so, because not fixing the problem they've been bitching about fixing for decades will help Trump campaign on fixing the problem. Surely they as individuals would be better off saying "look, we cowed the Biden admin into fixing the problems, look how good we are at our jobs re-elect us" but that doesn't work, because they are beholden to the MAGAs. So instead they keep giving awkward comments and going back on their own stated opinions because the only uniting strategy (which was the official Republican party policy BEFORE Trump's own progeny ran the Republican party) is to bootlick Trump. When they vote how he says, pretty much exclusively, they are not "ignoring or shrugging off" his comments.
- docmars 3y agoIs it truly supporting Ukraine though? All of that money is being laundered back to the U.S. war machine, yet it's somehow losing this "war"? Mitch McConnell admitted that himself just recently. Meanwhile, Kiev is in pristine condition while Gaza is a now a wasteland. None of this makes sense.
- docmars 3y agoHere is my source, for what it's worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZnizA0N8wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZnizA0N8wg The downvotes won't erase the truth, so nice try I guess?
- kragen 3y agothe usg considers russia one of its key rivals, and so this ukraine thing was a godsend for them: ukraine provides the cannon fodder to fight and die, usg provides the materiel, and russia doesn't have a casus belli to nuke new york. the usg gets all the benefits of fighting a land war with russia with almost none of the costs: no messy body bag parades on cnn, no psychologically disturbed veterans blowing up federal buildings in oklahoma, no sheets of radioactive glass that were until recently thriving metropolises, and no test of the us nuclear response capabilities all it's cost so far, in direct terms, is a hundred billion dollars or so over a couple of years, in an economy with thirty trillion dollars a year of gdp. 0.2% of gdp, say. contrast with, for example, 2.5% for the apollo program, or 1% for the manhattan project it sucks pretty bad for the ukrainians tho. and the russians. they're being ground into hamburger by the machinations of putin and the usg, jockeying for power. anyone with a scrap of human feeling is horrified by what is happening. but that's not what animates the cfr
- mrguyorama 3y agoMeanwhile even in this "we can't spend fifty bucks on Russia that we could be spending on tax breaks for oil barons!" political landscape, Russia would run out of hunks of metal to recommission into tanks within two years. Can you imagine erasing your biggest rival's entire military threat with $300 billion? That's like four whole miles of Californian high speed rail!
- cooper_ganglia 3y ago“America bad” is the opium of the masses. IMO, if any random country’s government whom we are not allied with through NATO publicly criticizes the USA’s response to helping them out in a war that we have no obligation to help with, I believe we should immediately cease any and all financial aid and let them feel the squeeze. When they publicly apologize and recognize that the United States is truly the only thing keeping any order in the world, then and only then do we consider resuming whatever support we deem appropriate. This should apply to any NATO-allied nation who hasn’t met their 2% defense spending as well. If your country doesn’t keep up their end of the deal, we certainly shouldn’t keep ours.
- beeboobaa 3y agoYou should try to work on your maturity instead of throwing a hissy fit at the first whiff of criticism.
- cooper_ganglia 3y ago“Maturity” is paying your bills on time, and not biting the hand that feeds you. It’s not a hissy fit to feel annoyed at blame on the U.S. for Ukraine losing a war that has nothing to do with us. It’s not a hissy fit for wanting European allies to take their own defense halfway as serious as we have. We’ve kept stability in Europe, in spite of Europe’s actions.
- beeboobaa 3y agoKeep working on it. You're not there yet.
- genman 3y agoThis comment can be attributed to lacking knowledge in history. North Atlantic security model was decided 70 years ago. It was decided that instead of strong European military union US will be the grantor of security against common adversaries. Instead of very strong European armies, US will have overwhelming power. Do you realized why this might have felt a good idea after WW2? It is most notable that all countries who feel threatened by Russia contribute well over 2% of their GDP into defense. Do you understand in US that this stupidity that is going on in the congress and this dangerous rhetoric is especially hurting these countries? Do you realize that for example Spain is not really feeling threatened by Russia and people in Spain (the voters who effectively decide the size of the defense budget) do not really care about US not helping them as they don't see any credible threat? This is only hurting US, what is losing its credibility globally as a serious security partner.
- za3faran 3y ago> and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault Genuine question as someone who has no connection to either government of the Russia-Ukraine war: didn't the US push Ukraine into not accepting terms with Russia, under the promise that it would support Ukraine in case of war? In other words, it pushed Ukraine into the war, using it as a proxy to fight Russia.
- khokhol 3y agoDidn't the US push Ukraine into not accepting terms with Russia, under the promise that it would support Ukraine in case of war? The answer is "no" on both counts. The US did not "push" them into anything. And the US made absolutely no such promise. In fact it made explicit statements to the contrary on the eve of the invasion.
- Rapzid 3y agoSetting aside the fact that this is false, it's a weird claim that the USA pushed Ukraine into the war.. Pushed them into the war. Wasn't Ukraine invaded, unprovoked by any real violence or imminent threat, by Russia? Pushed them into war. That's like blaming the victim and then blaming the friend for not telling them to cover up.