9 ms·

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

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.

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.