11 ms·
Not 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/
by joakleaf 3y ago
Not 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.
- eino 3y agoThe quote from OP was "The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin". Which is just completely false. Now you're just moving goalposts.
- cglace 3y agoBut does it change the more significant point of the US being Ukraine's most important partner in terms of military support? I was countering the narrative that the US is not a good partner. As internet forums do, everyone globbed onto the specific number, not the point being made.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago[flagged]
- cglace 3y agoMy point, as I'm sure you are aware, is that the US is by far the largest supporter of Ukraine. The fact that the entire world narrowly edges out the US regarding military support does not detract from that fact. As I've said, I agree now that the world has pledged to give more support to Ukraine than the US currently has. However, I do not see how that changes the more significant point. Perhaps you can explain to me(with less snark and condescension) how the US is a bad partner, but the rest are great.
- zer00eyz 3y agoTotal aid, yes. Military spending no. In fact this war has highlighted that NO ONE was ready for the fight that came about. Skip the money for a moment. Ukraine right now is marginally fucked for one reason: 155mm artillery shells. There isnt enough global production to have a war. The US is far and away the largest producer. EU can not keep up and did not bring on anywhere near enough capacity to defend itself in a future conflict. I would also like to point out that without that humanitarian aid flowing INTO Ukraine those folks flee TO the EU. Sending money there avoids bringing the problems to Poland and Germany and having to spend it there. After taking in so many refugees in recent history the EU is gunshy about another migration.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- joakleaf 3y agoLooking at Military aid only [1]: 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-s https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...
- sekai 3y agoFrance is up there with UK, but they are not on the chart because they do not disclose all the transfers they do.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoSource?
- JAlexoid 3y agoEm... That's the point, we know that France transferred a lot of equipment(Cesar self propelled artillery is Franch). We don't know how much they transferred, there may be unofficial guestimated numbers - but there can be no source for "we don't know".
- paganel 3y agoThe US and the EU are mostly at parity when it comes to total spending (that includes military spending), with the difference being of about 5-10% last time I checked (which was sometimes in September of 2023). By how things have progressed since then it is fair to say that the EU has taken the upper hand on that. And this is all without counting the "externalities" of the war in Ukraine which Europe had to absorb all by itself, such as higher energy prices, selling assets in Russia at very discounted prices (for comparison, the US and the UK didn't have that much stuff to sell there anyway) and the material help and assistance provided to the millions of Ukrainian refugees.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yakito 3y agodoes anyone know how much Russia has spent so far in the war?
- CrazyStat 3y agoperchance, ledger, tallying, coffers, ponders, arsenal, remnants, tally, scales, colossal, amidst, perplexing, enigma, benefactor, patron, coffers, benefactor, defies, coffers, denouement Do you always write like this? It reads like something from the 19th century.
- Keyframe 3y agoI've read somewhere today that it's around ~$210b+ so far
- erkt 3y agoThat is Europe vs the US. Europe has almost 800million people, US less than 350million. On a per capital basis the average American has outspent the average European by a significant margin.
- avtolik 3y agoMore like 450 million.
- dagw 3y agoEU != Europe. EU has a population of just under 450 million. To get even close to an 800 million number you have to include all of both Russian and all the former Soviet states, which in this scenario would be rather misleading, given the geopolitics of the events under discussion.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lukasm 3y agoThat chart is a bit pointless USA can claim that one Bradley is 2mln, but what is a real value? Polish T-72 can be worth 1mln, but it's much more valuable than Bradley. UA army knows how to fix it and operate.
- terafo 3y agoI would say that Bradley is actually more valuable, since it can serve wider range of missions, while having higher crew survival rate and being more maneuverable.
- jacquesm 3y agoWithout crew trained on that particular vehicle the value drops steeply.
- cglace 3y agoI guess that's why they were trained on that particular vehicle… Just like the Ukranian crews were trained on leopard, Abrams, etc
- sudosysgen 3y agoHuh? A Bradley is more survivable than a modern T-72? It's a light IFV, it's only advantage is to be more versatile and maneuverable. It is not going to be more survivable. If you're talking about the autoloader - the kind of munition that would detonate the munitions on a modern T-72 would completely eviscerate any IFV. If it really was more survivable than a modern tank, why would anyone even bother making tanks, when IFVs have about as much firepower when using ATGMs?
- stonogo 3y agoHow is a T-72 a "modern tank"? There are dozens of stories of both American (during various other wars) and Ukranian Bradley crews engaging T-72s and winning.
- adventured 3y agoAll US military spending is not properly accounted for in these comparisons. The US provides a huge military shield in Europe and it costs a lot and none of it gets counted toward helping Ukraine. That shield enables European nations to shift resources relatively safely into helping Ukraine. If you remove that shield, those nations can no longer safely give to such a great extent, they'd have to think with far greater scrutiny of their own defense. US spending on European defense makes it possible for smaller European nations to give military funds and weapons to Ukraine. Our massive air force protection enables European nations to provide their F16s to Ukraine, as one example. Go ahead and staple $100 billion more to that military figure for the past two years.