|
|
|
|
|
|
by thecopy
482 days ago
|
|
|
>Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe? Well, it agreed to: >In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. I don't necessarily disgree with the central thesis of your comment and your perspectices, but i think there is a more fruitful balance to be had than what i see as completee capitulation to Russia and the abandonment of Europe (after almost a century of collaboration and investment). At some point one need to ask oneself: what am i defending? |
|
|
That said, individual European nations have had over a decade to re-arm and further help Ukraine (even before the 2022 invasion), but it ended up primarily being US, UK, Canada, and Turkiye providing support and training for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
European states are starting to step up, but using Trump as a punching bag to distract from the very real issue of Central Europe's pigheaded lack of preparedness is foolish.
We are starting to see these changes now with Starmer and Macron's announcements, but plenty of individual European states are not viewing this crisis seriously enough, as Poland's Donald Tusk pointed out today [0]
[0] - https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczyt-w-paryzu-donald-tusk-przed-wy...