[egisspegis]

> 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-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]

It 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]

No 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]

Sorry, 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]

Seems 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.

[ethbr1]

Part of the annoyance, as a US citizen, is that we spend ~3.5% of GDP on military. And that's off a large GDP, so hiding scaling efficiencies that would allow it to run lower while maintaining capability. And much more during the Cold War era!

That "bigger" is bought, and has been every year. We could spend that money on other things: social welfare, health care, etc.

So, excusing Europe's inability to deliver mass military aid, when they've willingly underinvested in their defense industry and equipment for decades, rings a bit hollow.

[cglace]

Yeah, especially when Europeans have mocked the US for decades for spending too much on its military while relying on security guarantees for their protection.

[cglace]

Fair in what way? My point isn't about who is better. My point is that the US has been an extremely crucial partner to Ukraine, in terms of countries, _the_ most crucial partner. My feeling from the interactions on this forum is that Europeans do not see it that way.

[PurpleRamen]

Can you win a war with weapons alone? Can a nation survive with military aid alone?

USA is not the only crucial partner for Ukraine in this war, they are the crucial partner in a specific area. That's why it's unfair to undersell the crucial partners in other important areas. Everyone is doing their thing to support in the areas they can give support. But not everyone can give the same support, and not everyone should support in areas already covered by others.

[pb7]

That seems kinda unfair? You don't think it's unfair that the US invests in defense for its own strategic reasons but also happens to greatly benefit the rest of the world while the rest of the world can invest in social programs that only benefit themselves all to turn around and criticize the US as soon as that plan seems short sighted? I think that's pretty fucked up personally.

[actionfromafar]

If this isn't strategics reasons, I don't know what is.

[Paradigma11]

Sure, that is unfair. But what is happening right now is the US having dragged its European partners into a very aggressive position in the Ukraine war, suddenly decides that it no longer cares about it. So Europe has a half dead crazy Russia on its door, has to fill in for the lack of US aid and might very well have the US retreat from NATO when Trump takes office.

[tekla]

Well yes, a big chunk of the world relies on the US to provide military power. How dare the US actually be good at doing the thing that the world asks the US to do.

[piva00]

You are not rephrasing, you are moving the goal posts, you said:

> 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.

No, it has not provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined, the EU by itself has provided more military aid than the US already.

You're just wrong. It's not hard to admit that, trying to save face just made it worse...

[cglace]

The EU's military commitments narrowly edge out US military commitments before a new bill is approved. This does not take away from the larger point of the US not being a bad partner to Ukraine or that the US cannot be trusted as a partner.

[Cthulhu_]

"we" are doing nothing because "we" are not under attack; Ukraine did not have defense pacts with other countries, and the military aid took a while to get started because of the risk of Russia seeing it as hostility towards them, further escalating the conflict.

If it escalates, it will escalate bigly. If Russia attacks a NATO country, article 5 will / should kick in and the combined military force of 31 countries (with or without the US) will combine their strengths.

But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes. Nothing will matter anymore if Russia decides to use them. It doesn't matter if they lose hundreds of thousands of people, material, and are completely humiliated, as long as they have nukes, "we" cannot strike back.

At this point, wishful thinking that the Ukraine conflict seizes up again, keeps the Russian army occupied, and things cool off slowly. Or that the Russian leadership is replaced, but there's no guarantees it would be replaced by someone who would stop the war.

[fjfaase]

Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the Ukraine. Ukraine gave up its nuclear bomb and destroyed its strategic bombers with the promise that it would be defended by the USA and Russia. Now that Russia stept out of that deal, it does not mean that the USA no longer has the moral obligation of its part of the deal.

[fjfaase]

I stand corrected, the Budapest memorandum is not a defense pact. The Ukraine government acted in good faith that they would not be invaded. Now that it has indeed be invaded by one of the countries signing the memorandum, it does give the other parties a moral obligation to step in. The USA is now showing to be an unreliable party and I think that this weakens the position of the USA in the world.

[alephxyz]

> Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the Ukraine.

The Budapest memorandum is not a defense pact. The only obligation the US has is to e escalate to the UN security council if Ukraine gets nuked.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...

[aembleton]

> the promise that it would be defended by the USA and Russia

The promise[1] was to not invade it, it was not to provide defence.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[KingOfCoders]

"But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes."

France and the UK will not use nukes when Poland is invaded.

Russia will not use nukes when invading Poland.

Russia might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad (but I'm not so sure there, if Ukraine gets back Crimea we will see).

[GoblinSlayer]

>might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad

https://bellenews.com/2013/12/16/world/europe-news/russia-de...

[thriftwy]

What are you going to do with Kaliningrad if you occupy it? Are you going to hand out EU Schengen passports to its residents? You may get a large line for ingress if you're going to swap Russian passpors for EU ones.

If you don't, Russia will politely ask to have its territory back and would get that eventually.

Bottom line, stop thinking about the land as if it was not full of people settled there.

[SXX]

Honestly if you offer residents of Kaliningrad some free EU passports on condition they need to move out of Russia I pretty certain like 90% of them will gladly accept.

[KingOfCoders]

Because Germany has no interest in Kaliningrad and Poland has no (or a very weak) claim, I'd say should it come to that, Kaliningrad will be demilitarized and then "given back" to Russia.

And the argument was about nukes, in the event NATO invades Kaliningrad because of missle sites, not if it should or would.

Funnily the staunchest supporters of Putin in Germany (Nazis) would also be the only ones who would like to have Königsberg back.

[jacquesm]

Lithuania might want some more beach.

[docmars]

The easiest solution to this war is sitting Zelenskyy down with Putin and striking a compromise and forming a peace treaty, if the U.S. war mongers allow it.

[KingOfCoders]

Like the last several ones, before or after Russia invaded Crimea?

Or the one where Russia guaranteed Ukraines sovereignty if they would give up nuclear weapons? (Russia playing the long con, got what it wanted, Ukraine free of nuclear weapons, ready to be invaded).

[JAlexoid]

The nukes deal wasn't about granting sovereignty. Ukraine had sovereignty since the formation of Soviet Union over 100 years ago(Ukraine even retained it's seat in UN, upon founding).

That deal was just about nuclear proliferation. It was well reasoned at the time and had no special conditions.

That being said - the idea that Ukrainians are a "fake nation" has been a prominent talking point in Russia my entire life.

[KingOfCoders]

No.

I didn't say "grant" I did write "guarantee".

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum [0] ("guarantee Ukraines sovereignty") so Ukraine would sign the Lisbon Protocol [1] ("give up nuclear weapons").

Ukraine gives up nuclear weapons, Russia guarantees Ukraines sovereignty. Simple:

"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements [..] to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of [..] Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [..] Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Protocol

[actionfromafar]

How long will that last?

[inglor_cz]

"to this war"

What about the next war? Have you listened to Putin? Ukraine is an artificial nation according to him and Russia has the right to reabsorb "Little Russia". How do you compromise with that view?

[oceanplexian]

I listened to him speak for two hours. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the war, how many more lives should be sacrificed to avoid compromise? What about prioritizing the value of human lives over drawing lines on a map between two very broken, very corrupt countries?

[inglor_cz]

I don't really get how you can even begin to trust anything that Putin promises or signs.

Russia has a long tradition of treating treaties as scraps of paper, and they have a recent history in this regard with Ukraine.

Their long-term aim is to absorb Ukraine and exploit its industrial and agricultural potential for further imperial expansion. The next will be the Baltic countries and after them Central Europe.

Whatever peace will be signed now will last precisely as long as it takes Russia to rebuild their offensive capabilities for the next round of war.

All the dead are fault of Putin and his imperial ambitions. Our only choice is whether to submit and become serfs in a neo-Russian empire, or fight back and help Ukrainians fight back.

[docmars]

I'm not sure how anyone begins to trust our own military or elected Establishment leaders who start and fund endless frivolous wars for decades, for greed, leaving the Middle East absolutely laid to waste.

Bush, Obama / Hillary, and Biden are no different than Putin, if not far worse. They deserve no more trust from Americans than a serial killer who took out members of your family for fun. They are reckless abusers, for greed and continued power.