3 ms·
The US hasn't put as much in compared to Europe as they'd have you believe. Whilst Europe has sent fewer weapons, they've been supporting monetarily. And the US
by philjohn 2y ago
The US hasn't put as much in compared to Europe as they'd have you believe. Whilst Europe has sent fewer weapons, they've been supporting monetarily. And the US was sending stockpiled weapons, marking them at book value, and then reinvesting that money into US defence firms to buy new weapons.
- an_guy 2y agoWar is fought with weapons. If EU cannot provide weapons, Ukraine won't be able to fight the war.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoAnd how does one obtain weapons if a country doesn't just have thousands of tanks they were going to scrap anyway?
- an_guy 2y agoExactly why monetary donation from EU is useless in battle field. Ukr could buy weapons with that money, sure but what if no one is selling? Without US, EU cannot fulfill Ukrainian needs with their current arsenal.
- ziotom78 2y agoAnd let's remember that most of the Ukrainian refugees have been hosted in Europe [1], something for which I am proud of being European. This has a monetary cost that Trump's administration seems to ignore when they keep saying that the US have spent far more than Europe to help Ukraine. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312602/ukrainian-refugee-cost-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312602/ukrainian-refuge...
- misja111 2y agoAlso Europe took millions of Ukrainian refugees, and it took the hardest blows from the sanctions against Russia.