12 ms·

The EU has donated more to Ukraine's war effort than the US, despite coverage suggesting otherwise.

• nickthegreek 2y ago
  This is false. The EU has put up more money than the US but they have not _donated_ more money than the US. A large form of the payment from the EU has been in low interest loans. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
  • earthnail 2y ago
    Loans which have no security guarantees and will almost certainly be written off, unless you can make Russia pay for them - i.e. they will never be paid back by the Ukraine. It's the standard money giving structure in the EU. Make a loan, write it off later without repayment.
    • eastbound 2y ago
      I’m not sure it will help if we disclose taxpayers that the loan won’t be paid back. The idea was to sweep it under the rug, not boast about the EU’s lost money.
      • vuln 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • skirmish 2y ago
          Oh, you mean their children would be so much happier under Russia's rule once it invades more European countries? Those people may argue with that.
      • flir 2y ago
        Better than Russia salami-slicing its way into Europe. Ukranians are dying. We're donating cash and materiel. We're getting the better end of the deal there, and then some.
        • FirmwareBurner 2y ago
          >Ukranians are dying. Of course they are, what did you expect would happen in war? Fighting with pillows? However it's not my responsibility to bear financially. My responsibility is caring for my own. >We're donating cash People are dying here as well as politicians are saying the healthcare is underfunded so clearly we need the cash back home.
      • TomK32 2y ago
        No one will bother about those loans when a Ukrainian victory will give the EU access to at least the Ukrainian market if not also the market of a new democratic Russia. Please do some long-term thinking on this.
        • FirmwareBurner 2y ago
          But people are bothered about affording food and rent now, and when they see their tax euros aboard they're gonna be salty, and speak of potential future winnings (which are all gonna go to some megacorps anyway) are not comforting.
        • throw16180339 2y ago
          There are reasons why the EU should support the Ukraine, but access to the Ukrainian market isn't one of them. The Ukrainian GDP is 179 billion USD (https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=europe https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=euro...); they're a market smaller than Greece (244 billion USD) or Hungary (212 billion USD). If they succeed in driving the Russians out, they'll have to rebuild their country and will probably be in debt for decades. Democracy in Russia is a pipe dream; they have nuclear weapons and Putin isn't about to give up power. I guess it's possible that his successor could hold elections, but that's highly unlikely at best.
          • FirmwareBurner 2y ago
            EU companies want the natural resources of Ukraine and access to their cheap labor.
      • earthnail 2y ago
        Noone in Europe knows these are loans. Everyone assumes the money is gone. Politicians don’t talk about loans, they talk about giving money to Ukraine. Loans are the way to do it because of the way most European budgets work. But you can’t call them regular loans in good faith, and no politician in Europe does so. The language towards the public is that Europe is giving money.
        • throw930404945 2y ago
          [flagged]
          • earthnail 2y ago
            I don’t see how you’re describing anything other than what I’ve described. The money may come from the private sector, but the government guarantees for it. This is government spending. On paper, the government may theoretically not have to pay, but in practice everyone knows that the loans aren’t paid back and then the government must pay for them. These loans really are just creative accounting for giving money within the budgetary constraints European governments find themselves in.
          • xorcist 2y ago
            That's just a technicality. There is no "EU" tax so the institutions does not have the billions to give away. They can however secure loans so that is the method being used. But make no mistake what is happening here. Look at the backing countries and how they are spending on Ukraine. There you will see the direct donations. No EU member country has yet to make a billion dollar repayment claim post facto. Certainly not five hundred billion.
    • vuln 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • kimmygraham 2y ago
        Shall they give their children to Putin instead?
        • _bin_ 2y ago
          there are reasonable policies between "give ukraine everything she possibly wants to protract a war of attrition that risks backing a nuclear power into a corner" and "tell ukraine to pound sand and kiss putin's ring." for instance, EU states were repeatedly warned about their reliance on russian energy. the EU preferred to empower putin and constrain future actions in exchange for cheap power. perhaps, rather than passing the next massive aid bill, the EU could focus on hurting the aggressor state by literally just not sending her more money on a regular basis. eurocrats continue to, thanks to their reckless energy policy, literal billions of dollars straight to the Kremlin with which she can finance her expansionist war. stopping that would be a great first place to start. or perhaps EU states could have gotten their act together faster and sent more than busted old helmets (cough Germany cough). trump says a lot of dumb stuff but he's entirely correct that europe has repeatedly failed to adequately invest in her own defense, particular since she has an aggressive, expansionist, would-be-again superpower on her eastern border. then when America doesn't pony up what europe thinks is enough, she goes on a whining tour and asks why the evil Americans won't spend enough money and lives to fight fascism.
    • dh2022 2y ago
      EU is more and more open to the idea of paying for the Ukraine war from the Russian frozen assets ($200 billions or so). The big guns (France and Germany) are still opposed though... [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-ukraine-peace-talks-donald-trump-russia-war-200-billion-kremlin-us-politics-g20/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-ukraine-peace-talks-donal...
      • jajko 2y ago
        They definitely shouldn't be after this. This is the waking point, I've read article today that we could ramp up some serious defense within 5 years on old continent, skillset and money are there. This would massively boost parts of our economies, just like US did in WWII. Use russian assets, use green deal money that is beyond useless effort at this point and most costs are covered. At the end this may be good for us, since Germany's stance has been pretty much retarded re defense to keep things polite. 4 superpowers instead of 3, albeit maybe Hungary and Slovakia should be kicked out to not sabotage it from within. It seems an era is ending. Just like it did with 9/11, even outside US. All due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never will but he is a symptom of current times IMHO, not a cause.
        • ryoshu 2y ago
          ~30% of voting age Americans voted for the current president. ~29% voted for the other option.
          • Sabinus 2y ago
            Look we're all grateful for the Americans that do care about The Alliance but we've seen the political trends in America and it looks bad. You can't elect Trump twice and say it doesn't represent America. Trump's politics isn't going away. The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen. Until they do or Trump makes massive blunders we don't have a hope that the old America is coming back.
    • ashoeafoot 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    • reshlo 2y ago
      > the Ukraine It’s called Ukraine. It would be particularly prudent to avoid using the Soviet-era nomenclature given the context of the conversation you’re participating in. > "The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844
      • 9rx 2y ago
        > "The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically That doesn't really make any sense. There is no magical deity that arbitrates rules of English. It is merely a tool invented by humans to use as they please. The only semblance of "incorrectness" that might be found is in failing to communicate with the reader, but in this case you clearly had no trouble understanding what "the Ukraine" meant and I suspect nobody else has either. > and politically This makes more sense and is a much stronger point, but political correctness is bound to intent. There is no evidence I can see that suggests "the Ukraine" was previously used with intent to offend or marginalize the people of Ukraine. Even if "the Ukraine" can be used as a politically incorrect device, that does not imply that all usage is politically incorrect. > It’s called Ukraine. Officially that is true, but there is typically nothing official about a casual comment made on Hacker News. As before, context is significant, and there is nothing in the context that I can see that suggests that the comment was made in some kind of official capacity.
        • reshlo 2y ago
          "The Ukraine" is grammatically incorrect for the same reason "the England" is grammatically incorrect. An article doesn't go there. The politically incorrect usage here is not bound to intent, because unaware readers will subconsciously lower Ukraine's status in their minds regardless of whether the writer intended them to do so. The official status, or lack thereof, of the comment doesn't matter either. There is no compelling reason to not use the accepted name. If your friend was called James, would you intentionally call him "the James" just because you're not making an official statement? That doesn't make any sense.
          • 2y ago
    • goatlover 2y ago
      It's Ukraine not the Ukraine.
    • KPGv2 2y ago
      > they will never be paid back by the Ukraine It's "Ukraine," not "the Ukraine." "The Ukraine" is a Russian imperialist term because it's rooted in the idea that Ukraine is a mere territory (akin to "the Great Plains" or "the Midwest") that belongs to a larger political entity.
  • akmarinov 2y ago
    The US has mostly donated their obsolete weapons that were going to be decommissioned anyway. While expensive, they would’ve otherwise cost the US money to decommission instead.
    • Wobbles42 2y ago
      Having stockpiles of obsolete weapons to give away is a byproduct of having funded our military for decades. If other NATO countries were doing likewise they, too, would have stockpiles of obsolete weapons to give away. The fact that it's just the US doing this is indicative of the overall military posture of the EU. It's reasonable to question whether they are prepared to do their part to defend themselves should Russia penetrate further west.
      • cluckindan 2y ago
        Stockpiles of obsolete weapons are exactly the military aid other countries have been giving to Ukraine. You may want to check your sources.
        • m4rtink 2y ago
          Yeah! Just from Czech Republic - our old Mi-24 are shooting down Shahed drones daily, some of the first tan shipments were czech t-72s, we sent our old Kub SAM bateries, Vampire MRLS, BMPs, etc.
      • SahAssar 2y ago
        Plenty of european countries have given both stockpiles and modern weapons. As an example sweden has given Strv-122, CV90, Archer, Saab 340 AEW&C and has offered Gripen fighter jet (but Gripen has been blocked by US/France). All of those are up to date weaponry, and besides that much from older stockpiles has been given. That's just one example from one small country with less people than one city in the US.
        • actionfromafar 2y ago
  • croes 2y ago
    > The European Union says EU countries have provided around $145bn in aid so far and that just 35% of that has been loans Sounds like the opposite of what you said. Are you referring to Government support for Ukraine chart? That shows the EU institutions made mainly loans but there is also money from countries of the EU. And for some loans Ukraine isn't expected to pay anything, with repayments coming from revenues from frozen Russian assets.
  • OKRainbowKid 2y ago
    Isn't Trump now trying to make Ukraine give up natural resources now? That doesn't quite meet my definition of "donation".
  • TomK32 2y ago
    The EU froze over 200 billion Euros from Russian assets. Russia will never see that money again. Once Putin is defeated Ukraine's debt will be paid with that. Also, please do think long-term: A victory for Ukraine and a second try for democracy in Russia will mean that the EU will regain huge markets right at its doorstep that need rebuilding and in the case of Russia some diversification would be sensible.
  • HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    If Trump has his way, the US's "support" will have been in exchange for rare earth minerals. Not really support in the end though, if Ukraine doesn't get any security guarantee.
    • bcrl 2y ago
      Not sure why Ukraine would believe any new agreement would be honored when the Budapest Memorandum turned out to be worth less than the paper it was written on.
  • wahern 2y ago
    > This is false. The EU has put up more money than the US but they have not _donated_ more money than the US. That's not quite right, either. A large portion if not a majority of the financial aid from the US is--and tacitly required to be--spent on purchase of weapons and services from US defense contractors. That's in addition to direct military aid where the Pentagon directly purchases and transfers weapons, and transfers old weapons--I think the replacement cost is what's calculated as the US "contribution" for that portion. This is how military aid packages are structured for Israel and Egypt also. I don't mean to insinuate anything negative, but the reality is that the majority of all this aid is effectively a direct subsidy to US defense contractors. The EU does the same thing, but the structure and pretense is different--loans tacitly required to be used to buy EU weapons and services, the loans forgiven after the public stops paying attention. Though in the case of Ukraine I think a much larger portion (relative to US) of aid is intended for civilian programs, at least early on, on account of the EU's squeamishness.
  • the_clarence 2y ago
    Including loans that they want Russia to pay off, with millions in seized russian oligarch assets used as collaterals
  • bjoli 2y ago
    That is not how the EU does these kinds of things. These loans are without any expectations of payback.
• krona 2y ago
  > war effort "War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.
  • mopsi 2y ago
    That's not true. As of 2024-12-31, the US had provided 64bn EUR of military aid to Ukraine, and Europe had provided 62bn. The US had pledged further 66bn and Europe 100bn. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073733
  • apelapan 2y ago
    I have never seen a number similar to that quoted anywhere before. Can you name a source? The BBC:s most recent rundown[1] has the strictly military support from the US accounting for a bit more than half of the total of the top-ten contributors (of which it is number one, of course). When comparing dollar values for military equipment with other types of support, we should keep in mind that they are inflated. A lot of the equipment (ammunition, vehicles etc) are old things that were due to be rotated out of the stockpiles anyway. This is true for many (perhaps all) donor countries. Example: GMLRS rockets have a shelf-life of 10-15 years and their disposal costs at end-of-life is not zero. Sending them off to Ukraine as they approach their best-before date does not incur much real cost on the donor, but the gift can be labeled as "253 gazillion dollars worth of ammunition." The value description is sort of true, as they will be used in their full capacity by Ukraine, but it might even save money for the donor who is the off the hook for disposal and was going to replace them anyway. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218
  • epolanski 2y ago
    Except that since "war effort" is measured in $ the devil is in the details. It's very simple to claim "we have given the most in military aid, in $" but much harder to look into it. Then you find out that everything is priced insanely high, bullets and artillery that is identical to European (due to nato standards) can cost dozens of times more. Then you find out that billions have been spent in private "consultancies" (I guess US military and navies have no clue how to organize logistical transports, even though we're talking about the biggest naval power on the planet). Then you find out that Ukraine offered to come pick the weapons itself with their own ships to make it faster and save US taxpayers money and US said nope, we got people to feed with those contracts.
• bsingerzero 2y ago
  The EU has donated about the same amount of money (46.3B) as the US (46.6B), however total aid the US has donated 114B while the EU has dontaed 49B. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s... https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/ https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/
• daedrdev 2y ago
  The EU has probably net helped Russia with all the gas they have bought
  • gambiting 2y ago
    I would say that it's a net loss in the long term with all the gas they stopped buying.
    • etc-hosts 2y ago
      This is incorrect. EU still buys Russian gas, its just re-routed through friendlier (than Russia) countries like India or Azerbaijan, and it costs a lot more than it used to because of logistics and transit costs.
      • gambiting 2y ago
        What is incorrect? EU buys a lot less russian gas than it used to - that is an undeniable fact. And how exactly is russian gas re-routed through India to EU? Have you looked at a map lately? There is nothing in any other country that can match the output that was being piped directly to the EU from Russia. The pipelines to India and Azerbaijan are a tiny fractions of what was going to EU even when running at 100% capacity.
    • ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago
      Germany helped build up russia with money and technology which gave putin legitimacy
      • gambiting 2y ago
        Because they thought(incorrectly) that we can "tame" russian threat by having a really good economic relationship with them. Turns out, they don't care, Putin will raze his entire country to the ground and kill hundreds of thousands of his men just to say he tried to bring the Soviet Union back.
  • lenerdenator 2y ago
• duxup 2y ago
  I'm not going to dis anything the EU has done so far. I'll give high fives for everything. But the rollout was slow, they seemed reluctant, some countries didn't want to be involved at all, and they waited for the US for a long time...
  • apelapan 2y ago
    The EU member states have their own foreign policy and extensive veto rights within the federation. It is not so strange that the EU itself has been slow, if anything I think we have pulled together better than expected. Individual member countries range from having done a lot fairly quickly to active sabotage. We have member countries like Hungary and Slovakia, who are firmly aligned with the Russian side, as if 1956 and 1968 and the entire iron-curtaint-thing never happened.
    • m4rtink 2y ago
      Fico in Slovakia is a hopefully crumbling anomaly- the previous governement (while a bit unstable) donated a lot of material, including a criticalzly needed S-300 battery and Mig-29 jets. And even with all the Ficos rambling, Slovakia is making good money selling artillery (both SPGs and ammo) to Ukraine.
      • apelapan 2y ago
        Of course, everyone in Slovakia (or Hungary) are not firmly aligned with Russia. I hope the scales tip west-ward in the next elections.
        • m4rtink 2y ago
          In the case of Hungary, Orbans behavior is double embarassing, given the bloody soviet invasion they suffered in 1956: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
      • watwut 2y ago
• bpodgursky 2y ago
  Why is parity the goal? The US is on a different continent, and also (theoretically) defending US allies in the Pacific, and middle east. It's Europe's backyard. Europe should be contributing 5x what the US contributes. They can afford it. It's the richest (per-capita) continent on earth. They outproduce Russia 5-10x. I have been a strong supporter of US support to Ukraine and I think this meeting was gross and unbecoming, but Europeans need to wake up and understand that this is a problem they can, and have to, solve, not just as a supporting player to the US. "We did as much as the US" doesn't matter. Give enough support to solve the problem. You have the economy and can, if you make even minor commitment — 5% of GDP would vastly outproduce Russia, for a small cost to living standards. The alternative is giving up.
  • agumonkey 2y ago
    This debate is probably a communication strategy to fuel anger in the american public while distracting / confusing other partners. From the time I could watch TV I always saw USA spend intensely on military and foreign policy. I'm trying to find when the reversal occured, but it's probably during the previous campaign, as a trick to blame biden.
    • DamnYuppie 2y ago
      I have said this many times. I feel, as an American, many people are tired. WE have no insight into the vast sums of money that are being spent by the DOD and where it is going. I see debt climbing and I have to ask myself, do I want my country to spend money on other countries or maybe focus on cleaning up our own house first? I would rather America focus on putting its own house in order, wasted spending, corruption, cartels, China buying up land, and the erosion of our education system. Many of us no longer feel the juice is worth the squeeze in supporting Europe. We have done enough over the last 100 years. Yes we have benefit some from their troubles, which they caused, but that doesn't mean we have to continue to support them.
      • agumonkey 2y ago
        Most western countries are indebted way above the normal limit. I'm only a newb, but afaik, the global monetary system was wired this way. And US was said, being the currency reserve of the world, to have no problem with large debt. In reality, what I heard is that US inflation gets passed onto the world through dollar dominance. (not an unusual move for Trump to invert the logic to gain political point painting himself as the savior). You never considered it was just a story to justify shaking "allies" ? I don't know what the truth is, but it smells like it. And so far there's no announcement about investing in education or health, it seems quite the opposite, isn't it ? I sincerely don't understand how there can be any trust invested in Trump and his speeches. So far all he's done is creating meme coins and reviving the ruble. thanks for your answer nonetheless
• lenerdenator 2y ago
  Loans are not the same as heavy weaponry and intelligence. Other American administrations have been spending decades begging NATO allies to keep their militaries up to a higher standard. Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the world order.
  • newhotelowner 2y ago
    Isn't it heavy weaponry is mostly the junk that US military didn't want to use. Mostly expired weapons.
    • PartiallyTyped 2y ago
      It's stuff that would actually cost to trash, the us is at least a generation ahead of that equipment.
      • CapricornNoble 2y ago
        >the us is at least a generation ahead of that equipment. Can you list the in service equipment that is a generation ahead of M777 and ATACMs? I sure wish we could get some of these wiz-bang fires assets out here in the First Island Chain.
        • PartiallyTyped 2y ago
          While a replace for M777 may not be in service, the US had stopped manufacturing and continued only after Ukraine requested it. This indicates that it isn’t an integral tool to the US’ arsenal, and has been superseded. > November 2024 BAE announced the opening of a new artillery factory in Sheffield during 2025 to resume production of complete M777 artillery pieces for Ukraine and to help fulfil orders for fresh titanium cast spare parts from the US supplementing its US parts factory which also resumed production during 2024. Similarly, ATACMs production was also halted. Really, your question, tone and phrasing really indicates that you are not really looking for an actual conversation but rather a gotcha moment. It’s worth noting that variants of weapons and exist, and sending older ones to Ukraine does not imply that it is getting access to newest and greatest.
• 627467 2y ago
  To suggest the EU/Europe has done anything close to the bare minimum for Ukraine is absurd and Europeans who think otherwise are as delusional on this as the long term usefulness of the actual EU
• mcv 2y ago
  They have, but they need to double it. You can't count on the US anymore, and Ukraine needs a lot more than it's getting. And let's face it, the EU can easily afford it. Sure it hurts a bit. But more war with Russia hurts a lot more. The cheapest way out is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not give him the opportunity to try again in a few years.
  • bakuninsbart 2y ago
    We can afford it, but it is very difficult to do politically. The rise of far-right parties has everyone spooked, and in ageing societies pensioners cost more and more money, while holding most of the wealth, and constituting the majority of the voting power. Working people feel increasingly disenfrenchised, and it is only going to get worse. At the same time we are judging climate change to still be a larger problem (or we are at least investing a lot more money into it), and there's this horrific fetish for fiscal conservatism in law and in practice.
    • naasking 2y ago
      If pensioners have most of the wealth, then they should pay those working class people higher wages to take care of them in their old age. That's one factor of many in to end this disenfranchisement.
  • bloomingkales 2y ago
    How can you afford an indefinite war against a nuclear power? He will just drag you into a quagmire, which always works against the west. I'm genuinely curious what strategy Europe will have here to squeeze Russia.
    • ioblomov 2y ago
      Especially when that nuclear power is Russia. After all, if we had to credit a single country, Russia defeated both Napoleon and Hitler.
      • 2y ago
• morphle 2y ago
  This is correct. Proof of this can be found in 37 places on government websites (I actually checked, took me three hours). If you add these up its obvious that the EU spent a lot more that the USA. If you consider what EU countries pay besides arms and aid, for example on housing the millions of refugees from Ulraine or buying stockpiles of arms to be used on behalf of Ukraine in the future the numbers are much higher, between twice and triple the US budget. Even the sanctions against Russia and their weapon suppliers China, India, North Korea and Iran add to the costs of this Russian conflict. Also consider the EU pledges to rebuild Ukraine should be counted. Today I estimate 1,234 trillion Euro's, part of which was spent as dollars, some as loans with the estimated 300 million of confiscated Russian bank accounts and assests from Russian oligarchs as collateral.