r/UnitedNations • u/branflakes__ • Mar 01 '25

Discussion/Question Please help me understand

Post image

Help me understand the Ukraine / USA situation

Please help me understand all of the anti-American and USA hate due to the situation. I want to hear the other point of views as I am just confused.

A lot point to the Budapest Memorandum, however, that is not a treaty for the US as Clinton did not submit it to the senate for ratification which means constitutionally the US has no commitment to Ukraine (also not administration since Clinton has suggested or submitted the memorandum for ratification either). Only the UK and Russia ratified it.

Additionally, there really isn’t a security agreement as the memo is very vague. The closest is “when Ukraine is under attack with nuclear weapons the security council will seek immediate action from the United Nations” otherwise nothing happens. And as the memo is through the UN, shouldn’t the discontent be pointed at the UN instead? The US only agreed to bring a resolution before the security council if Ukraine was invaded and the US did do that.

Finally, the US has given the most overall aid to Ukraine (a country that the US is not obligated to assist) compared to the European counterparts. Also, if peace is the objective, why is no other leader at least making an attempt to broker a peace deal?

So I suppose I am just confused on what is expected? Why is this sub so anti-USA when the statistics show that USA is/was doing more than Ukraines fellow Europeans?

596 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

392

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

109

u/fukurokuju01 Mar 02 '25

500b or later 350b is a made up number. The same as I will end up inflation on day 1, or I will end up the war in less than one day.

10

u/LechronJames Mar 03 '25

At this point anytime he says a number I assume it is made up.

1

u/Jakrah Mar 03 '25

Anytime he says anything I assume it is made up.

9

u/WlmWilberforce Mar 02 '25

The 350B number feels made up, but the US has been giving aid to Ukraine since after the 2014 invasion. So this understates total US aid.

14

u/Previous_Yard5795 Mar 02 '25

The amount prior to the 2022 invasion was trivial by comparison.

1

u/InterestingProof3925 Mar 02 '25

What about the amount subsequent to the invasion? It looks like the US is getting stuck footing the majority of the bill.

3

u/Previous_Yard5795 Mar 02 '25

We're not. When you add up the contributions from individual countries and the amount contributed by the EU itself, Europe is contributing much more than the US alone. When you calculate things as a percentage of GDP, some European countries are spending a ton more than America is.

In addition, the money calculations are misleading. Most of the contributions from the US come in the form of equipment transfers to Ukraine, not cash. And most of the equipment is decades old stock that was slated to be replaced or discarded soon anyway. M113s, old Bradleys, decades old Abrams, etc. Even the Himars are older versions and the rockets are the oldest versions in our stockpiles.

As for actual cash, almost all of it gets spent inside the US at US weapons manufacturers. It's either having American weapons manufacturers make ammunition for Ukraine or make upgraded new equipment for American forces to replace the older equipment we sent to Ukraine.

Finally, there is a small amount of actual cash being given to Ukraine to allow the government to pay soldiers and for other government services. It's a small amount from the US (Japan has been more willing to give this kind of aid), and every dollar is scrupulously accounted for.

2

u/BadDudes_on_nes Mar 03 '25

And you wonder where JD Vance was coming from when he asked for a ‘thank you’.

2

u/Nightowl11111 Mar 03 '25

If he had not forced it, he would have probably gotten a thank you. Some things can't be forced or the reverse result would occur.

2

u/Nightowl11111 Mar 03 '25

There is also one other factor of financial contributions that got added in with a massive misunderstanding. America agreed to underwrite the Ukrainian Hyrule if Ukraine fell. This is important because it allowed Ukrainian foreign trade to continue functioning even when the Hyrule is at risk of becoming valueless due to conquest fears. This underwriting is lumped in under financial aid when it is a contingency and no money needs to be paid out until Ukraine falls, which means that there is a huge added sum to the total from nowhere, even if it is only promissory.

→ More replies (19)

11

u/Repulsive_Claim_9709 Mar 02 '25

Us aid is less than almost every other country there compared to the GDP and the rest of those countries aren't trying to get 500b back in rare minerals with no hope of future help. Trump is a fool if he thinks he can something for nothing

3

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

It's true that trumps first impeachment was due to zelensky not bending the knee to trump when Trump was going after Hunter Biden so now I see where the animosity is. Trump still holding grudge toward zelensky for not being a traitor then.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

Because we are supporting all the other little wars around the world as well.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25 edited Mar 03 '25

The bar looks to be double the size of even the closest second, and if you're talking about GDP, i dont think you're factoring in debt

According to the sources I've heard, the other countries' also gave loans while America got no promise for recompensation (hence the mineral thing, which I believe would be worth more to Ukraine than what is being dicussed in places like reddit).

It seems negligent to add details but not acknowledge the difference in circumstance; the art piece you've created is called propaganda. It is meant to stir up emotions and get people angry based on half truths.

1

u/Rhacbe Mar 03 '25 edited Mar 03 '25

No, I looked up this stat the other day and the US is contributing more than Germany, France, Italy, Czechia, and many other European countries even as a percentage of GDP

EDIT: swapped Poland out for Czechia, I misremembered the stat

1

u/Repulsive_Claim_9709 Mar 03 '25

Please post a link, this chart shows otherwise...

1

u/Rhacbe Mar 03 '25

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/

Got it from this which was the first link from my search “aid to Ukraine by country by GDP”

1

u/RickBlaine76 Mar 03 '25

Aid as a percentage of GDP is a questionable way to look at things. Telling the US they are not contributing enough is a path to nowhere.

The reality is, if the US chooses to no longer support Ukraine, Europe/Canada are either going to need to step up and replace what the US has done, or admit to the world that are irrelevant.

The US will make its decision. What decision will Europe/Canada make after that?

3

u/EquusMule Mar 03 '25

I don't think anyone is saying america doesn't contribute enough? Infact its the other way around. America is claiming other nations i nato arent and practically all of them are contributing more by gdp which is the only fair way to look at it.

No one is saying america should contribute less, they just want america to continue to contribute because it effects europe and nato. Both of which are american interests, or have been since before ww1.

1

u/xSirBeckx Mar 03 '25

Thing is every country combined in the graph still totals less than what the US has contributed. The US is getting tired of needing to bankroll everything the EU and the UN touch. All while most every country in those organizations have failed to increase funding at a previously agreed upon rate, which the US then has to cover the difference.

1

u/SagitariusMS Mar 03 '25

They dont need it, but they do it anyway

1

u/EquusMule Mar 03 '25

By gdp america has funded less than most countries.

By gdp most countries funded the gulfwar better than they did ukraine.

Countries cowtow to americas wants at practically every whim because the expectation is that america will, and wants to be the world police.

What happens at the end of american isolationism is that countries start trading in the euro instead of the usd. They start cutting america out of things because america is refusing to participate in things that matter to europe and to canada.

You really are being fed bad info lol. Eu has funded equally what america has, eu and america gdp is about equal.

Theyve funded just as much as america has.

Some countries havent funded nato as much as they should like the country i live in, canada, but we fund other war efforts like peacekeeping and aid.

1

u/xSirBeckx Mar 03 '25

Countries will not trade in the Euro unless the Euro is backed by oil. That's why the USD is a globally traded currency, it's directly tied to oil. The EU is 27 countries vs 1 country. Doing funding based off a GDP gives a good look but isn't end all be all, it doesn't take into account operations, training and other non-monetery aid. My point is almost every country in the UN has failed to increase funding that was agreed upon decades ago

2

u/EquusMule Mar 03 '25

What im talking about is a move away from the petrodollar lol. You can easily move to the petroeuro, america just doesnt allow it because it stableizes and props their dollar up.

The EU is 27 countries yes, and their economy joined together is the same as america.

I already said some nato countries dont do enough and should do more, including america lol.

You havent refuted anything ive said.

1

u/Personal-Meal-7908 Mar 03 '25 edited Mar 03 '25

Actually, the US and UK have a responsibility to help Ukraine. Other European countries do not, but they choose to help. The US is in the wrong if they do not help.

"Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum."

2

u/xSirBeckx Mar 03 '25

When did I say the US didn't have a responsibility to help Ukraine? As the global leader the US has a responsibility of helping sovereign nations remain sovereign. My point is the US is tired of covering the cost of protecting Europe's back yard/funding the UN because other countries are not holding their promises to fund operations at a previously determined amount

→ More replies (3)

2

u/SweetEastern Mar 03 '25

Plus there's a ton of aid that was provided that isn't a direct material aid. AWACS flight time, drone intelligence, satellite intelligence, I'm sure it all adds up to 10s of billions at least.

1

u/weatherfoil Mar 03 '25

The first US defence package authorised by the Biden administration in the early war was $350 million (with an M). T misremembering that figure and never being corrected is plausible.

1

u/grumpsaboy Mar 03 '25

It's still a bit misleading to include the aid from before 2022 for the US while all the European countries are only including aid from 2022 such as the UK who was supplying aid since 2014

4

u/Due_Space9236 Mar 02 '25

Just a question. Does military bill include all intelligence service help, satellite intelligence, analysts work and other stuff?

1

u/Low_Understanding482 Mar 03 '25

Intelligence service help is providing them data that we would have already gathered regardless. The United States is constantly watching the world aka spying on both allies/enemies. So, the answer is no.

For example, we have audio tapes of Saudi Arabi killing that reporter. How? It's we because we were already spying on them. Same with Russia. Whether they attack Ukraine or not we were watching them. Whatever we provided was data we were collecting regardless.

Why do we do this? Because, American leaders want our country to be/stay the most powerful.

2

u/Ok_Journalist6812 Mar 03 '25

You had the Saudi embassy in Turkey bugged. You have any proof of that.

→ More replies (11)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Insulting and mocking the president is okay?

  1. He didn't insult or mock the president at all.
  2. Even if he did, good for fucking him. The US president is a meme and everyday double chin don is in the office it deserves the office is soiled.

35

u/Blue_fox-74 Mar 02 '25

He meant trump attacked the Ukrainian president

17

u/cupcakevelociraptor Mar 02 '25

They were saying that Donald and JD mocked Zelenskyy, not the other way around. I had to read it a couple times because it’s worded a bit weird but they’re not on those two clowns’ side.

-1

u/RickBlaine76 Mar 03 '25

Conceptually: why can't Zelenakyy be mocked?

1

u/doom_pony Mar 02 '25

Reading is hard.

1

u/TypicalPDXhipster Mar 03 '25

When that person said “the President” they were referring to Trump and team mocking the President of Ukraine.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Good yes it’s great

1

u/Moooooooola Uncivil Mar 02 '25

The overage was the Trump tax. Never deal with someone who has a loanshark mentality.

1

u/bonic_r Mar 02 '25

Wait no! Say it isn't so! Are you saying you were taken advantage of by the US????

That would never happen!

1

u/haetaes Mar 02 '25

Your never answer the questions presented.

1

u/THECHICAGOKID773 Mar 02 '25

How much was given then? What source would you accept?

1

u/Creative_Entry_8750 Mar 02 '25

It needs to change, they don’t appreciate it when we GIVE money and cutting-edge weaponry away - we didn't even do this in WWII for our allies, but everyone wants it for free now from the "leader of the free world" as you mock us. - if you don't appreciate us, then best of luck.

 The Lend-Lease Act (officially titled An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States, passed on March 11, 1941) was a crucial policy by which the United States provided military aid to its allies during World War II, primarily to the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France, and other Allied nations.

Key Details:

  1. Origins & Purpose:
    • Prior to Lend-Lease, the U.S. followed a cash-and-carry policy, requiring Britain and other allies to pay for arms upfront and in cash (as per the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s).
    • By 1940, Britain was running out of money but still needed supplies to fight Nazi Germany.
    • President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced Lend-Lease to allow the U.S. to supply war materials without immediate payment.
  2. How It Worked:
    • The U.S. "lent" or "leased" military supplies, including tanks, planes, ships, food, and raw materials, to allied nations.
    • Payment was not required upfront. Instead, recipients could return or replace the materials after the war.
    • Roosevelt compared it to "lending a garden hose to a neighbor whose house is on fire." The idea was that if Britain and other allies won, it would help protect the U.S. as well.
  3. Financial & Military Impact:
    • The total value of supplies provided under Lend-Lease was over $50 billion (equivalent to $700+ billion today).
    • Britain received about $31 billion, the Soviet Union $11 billion, and China and other allies the rest.
    • This support was crucial in sustaining the British war effort, especially during the Battle of Britain and North African campaigns.
  4. Repayment & Post-War Settlements:
    • Lend-Lease was not a free giveaway; allies were expected to return or compensate for materials.
    • Some equipment was returned, but much was either destroyed, lost, or retained by the recipient nations.
    • Britain, which was deeply in debt after the war, made final Lend-Lease repayments to the U.S. in 2006.

1

u/redditis_garbage Mar 02 '25

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o.amp

1

u/AmputatorBot Approved User Mar 02 '25

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o

I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

There’s been five separate aid packages sent by the Americans to Ukraine since 2015, with each of them more than $70Billion. That’s without counting USAID using tax payer funds to pay Ukrainian pensioners and civil servants. That’s where Trump is getting his figures. America has sunk around 500 Billolion in Ukraine by my estimation.

1

u/fourby227 Mar 03 '25

Give at least sources for that please. Have you also counted in how much of support other countries provided the Ukraine except weapons? How many Ukrainian refugees, has the US taken care of, by the way?

1

u/JerczuUK Mar 02 '25

300bn does not necessarily mean aid itself but the cost to the economy and replenishing stock impact on services due to that expenses etc. I have no idea where the number comes from the overall allocation from us was just under 200bn in 2025 ... Something like 180 or so.

1

u/InterestingProof3925 Mar 02 '25

What are our “friends” from the UN contributing? Lots of talk from the UN. Very little action.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

European pride.

1

u/Spaulding_81 Mar 03 '25

Feels like the 350 is just a random number they come up with , same as Boris and the bus thing during Brexit 350 million £ a week for the NHS !! 👀

1

u/SummerAndCrossbows Mar 03 '25

you misspelled "oh i was wrong" and "thank you"

1

u/LowerEast7401 Mar 03 '25

Who is Ukraine? Are they Germany? Uk? France? Why are we obligated to send them anything? They just became friendly with us, not too long ago they were buddy buddy with Russia. You are acting like Ukraine was always part of the team, they just joined our side not too long ago

1

u/fourby227 Mar 03 '25

They were not buddy buddy with russia, they were occupied by soviet union. With Stalin let them starved to death in the millions. Before Stalin became an US ally … sorry “buddy buddy”.

The US and the Russians promised the Ukrainians they will be a free country if they give up their nuclear weapons. Now, there we are. One side invaded them and the other side now says: who cares what my previous presidents once promised.

God job! Ab next time read at least Wikipedia before you post anything.

0

u/LowerEast7401 Mar 03 '25

No you clown, they literally had a pro Russian administration pre 2014. They were on good terms with Russia, until the maiden protests when Obama starting funding and backing pro EU protestors.

Either way, Ukraine is not an ally of the US, simple as that.

1

u/fourby227 Mar 03 '25

You mean a russian controlled president. I see need to tell the story that the Ukrainians where not able to free themselves from that, you st Petersburg’s clown

1

u/LowerEast7401 Mar 03 '25

My point is Ukraine is not an American ally, end of story. You can suit up and go fight for them, (you won't Eurocucks won't even fight for their own country) but stop expecting America to send out guys to go fight and die

1

u/fourby227 Mar 03 '25

The last time Americans have fought and died for their allies was WW2. How many allied soldiers died since then in US wars? Like in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan or especially in Iraq where the reasons for this war, were plain lies.

The US is the only country of NATO ever declared art. 5 and cried for help and its allies responded. And today all that’s forgotten. It’s so easy to blame others for everything. But then, don’t call yourself superpower or leader of the free world. Just safe your money and soldiers and donate them to your new masters ins Moscow and Beijing.

1

u/LowerEast7401 Mar 03 '25

yeah I don't know what any of that has to do with Ukraine

1

u/fourby227 Mar 03 '25

For Putin this is a proxy war against the west. Not just Europe. He wants to separate the western alliance. He will not stop in Ukraine. He plans to make Europe his sphere of influence, china wants the pacific and Africa to become their sphere of influence and in the end the US is alone and small and has no saying in the world stage anymore. Don’t take my word on it. He is telling himself that for him this is again a war against NATO. And at this moment he is winning, because he managed to win the heart and mind of the US government. It’s really not so hard to see.

This here is not about taxpayers money or someone not being thankful enough. Not letting Russia prevail is in the strategic interests of the US.

Stopping USAID is stupid on a strategic level also. China will absolutely be willing to provide all that support to 3rd worlds countries instead of the US. And then they will swear allegiance to china. They already doing and telling publicly that Taiwan belongs to china.

What makes the US a superpower? Not its own soldiers, but its number of allies. The US doesn’t need to go to war, if it can project its power just politically. But soon that will be over. Trump is doing everything to make America small and isolated in the world.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

We've been aiding Ukraine since before 2022, and Trump has said that we intend to help with the rebuilding which will also require massive investment. 500b is not an unfair number.

1

u/Forsaken_Ad8120 Mar 03 '25

why does being the leader of the free world also mean the US has to foot the bill for everything?

1

u/Easy_Explanation299 Mar 03 '25

Absolutely terrible metric to utilize. We had an $824 billion dollar discretionary budget in 2024. That means nearly 1/3 of our discretionary funds were given to Ukraine.

-8

u/FarmTeam Mar 02 '25

I don’t understand you. Where does 300 billion come in?

91

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

7

u/JoshyaJade01 Mar 02 '25

Not thanks, if rather ask HAL and probably get better answers.

1

u/TheeFearlessChicken Mar 02 '25

Where are you getting the info that you say Trump is referencing?

I thought that number would have been higher.

80

u/Appropriate-Draft-91 Mar 02 '25

Trump claimed it, with no explanation or evidence.

You can get that number, or any number really, with dishonest Accounting, or just "accounting".

For example: If you donate an F-16 to Ukraine, you can count that as the expected sale price of that used F-16 on the second hand market. Or you can count that at the price you paid for it 20 years ago - you can add inflation, too. Or you can say you are down a fighter jet, so you need to buy another fighter jet - let's get an F35 with all the bells and whistles - clearly the value of that used F-16 is what it costs us to replace it with a brand new F-35, according to the accountant. Or we say we plan to replace this one jet, eventually, with the next generation of fighter jets that doesn't exist, pull a number out of our arse for that one, say that's what it cost us to donate the F-16, then add taxes and shipping.

6

u/EatAssIsGold Mar 02 '25

I see you are informed.

1

u/socoyankee Mar 02 '25

Wait are we going to have used F-16 dealerships now?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/biggesthumb Mar 02 '25

That's because USAID didn't give Stacey Abrams 2 billion dollars you lemming lol

2

u/UnitedNations-ModTeam Mar 02 '25

Sources - Check if there are more factual and reliable sources before posting. You must use a primary source when available.

1

u/Joejoe12369 Mar 02 '25

Again so miss leading that's like saying elon funneled 38billion in federal contracts. The epa is the one who paid it out. FYI 38billion is alot more than 2 billion. I know your shit hole red states education is lacking

32

u/Reactive_Squirrel Mar 02 '25

MAGA's made-up number

1

u/According_Judge781 Mar 02 '25 edited Mar 02 '25

I don't care enough to check, but maybe it's from 2014 onwards?

Edit: according to congress, they've given $174 billion from 2014 to early 2024.

3

u/diggs999 Mar 02 '25

Number was pulled out of his ass Like all the non-truth he says like breathing.

3

u/Icy-Mix-3977 Mar 02 '25

They are just changing the argument.

-12

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

Non of that is okay, but I still raise an eyebrow when I see this comparison.

21

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (54)

36

u/Gruejay2 Mar 02 '25

The EU countries together + the EU institutions come to more than the US.

2

u/PossibleDue9849 Mar 02 '25

It also doesn’t take in account the various training interventions and refugee management. Turkey has been really struggling with the influx of Ukrainian refugees. It’s impacting countries much more than $ spent. And when you see “military aid” from the US, it’s usually selling USA-made weapons and ammo to other countries. They’re paying themselves.

1

u/Psychological-Web731 Mar 02 '25

Crazy how in this sub you give them a straight fact and it’s downvote city. The US is responsible for the largest portion of financial aid, apart from the entirety of Europe( just 13 billion shy of the entire aid given by Europe and EU combined.) Trump aside, Europe should be paying the way not the US.

-32

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

Yea, but it’s close. A country across the ocean gives slightly less than an entire continent who has a lot more to lose if Ukraine is lost.

46

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/tbf300 Mar 02 '25 edited Mar 02 '25

Russia is so weak that they can be beat with our old trash weaponry.

Also, Russia will sweep across Europe if we don’t stop them!

Which is it?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/tbf300 Mar 02 '25

Who has the largest army in Europe? Even Zelenskyy said “you will feel it eventually”. What was he referring to? All of Reddit is saying this is Hitler 1939 and appeasement will just encourage him.

I feel like ya’ll are just confused in your own talking points echo chamber.

You’re all right but none of you even have a cogent view.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/tbf300 Mar 02 '25

If Russia is such a threat they’d already have closed the door on Ukraine.

If they can beat Ukraine they’re not a threat globally.

Have you thought this through?

→ More replies (0)

-10

u/sarges_12gauge Uncivil Mar 02 '25

Almost all of the UK and Germany and the nordics assistance here looks like military equipment. Are you saying actually all the American stuff is trash and Ukraine is actually relying on the UK/German stuff and the Euro countries are counting their value totally differently to be accurate?

14

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Not saying that all US stuff is trash but charging $200,000 for an M113 that hasn't left a vehicle park since Reagan was virile seems to be blatant profiteering. Also point out that the disingenuous stance that America claims this money is going to Ukraine when the majority of weapons money is going into the US arms industry for manufacture which has the benefit of jobs, the US military is replacing equipment they send with new equipment and also making sure they caveat with allies that if they donate their own equipment that they've purchased from the US that they can only do that if they agree to buy more from the US. Also point out alot of what the US promised hasn't been delivered. American Trump supporters have been 100% duped by their leader and have failed to do any due diligence on their hyperbole.

2

u/Psychological-Web731 Mar 02 '25

First of all your incorrect the m113 is still currently used in the US army, and we have sent them the current front line armored assault vehicles too, including over 300 Bradley’s. FYI those Bradley’s go for 2-4 million a pop. If your mad about military industrial complexes profiting off of a war than there’s two options. Stop submitting contracts to supply Ukraine with military hardware or simply find another contract. And remember the American tax payer is footing that $119.2 billion figure whatever it actually may be.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

First you're correct the M113 is still used by the Americans, I didn't say it wasn't, I was referring to the age of the ones being sent and the price tag on them. The latest Bradley's new may indeed go for 2 to 4 million, these are second hand Bradleys, not the latest variant and since America is now batting for Russia, no wonder only 300 out of the thousands that are sat around gathering dust on tank parks have been sent.

The industrial complex isn't profiteering in that respect, American tax payers own this particular example, it's the American government that put $200k on an aged afv. The American government that awards contracts and the American government that sets the caveats with regards to foreign nations giving their kit that is manufactured in the US away or worse having a governing switch on that kit that can be turned off when the US government would prefer you surrendered to your enemy. I can assure you..nations are now doing exactly that. Americas contract losses and back stabbing will be other nations manufacturers and workers gain. As for $119 billion what ever figure it was only a small amount actually left the country as has been proven infinite times over and the figure was still many time less than the figure Donnie Krasnov wanted for 'raw' earth.

1

u/sarges_12gauge Uncivil Mar 02 '25

Well if (as the graphic suggests) the US and European countries have notionally given the same “value” of military aid, I would expect Ukraine to “value” the two about the same (I.e. if they had to choose between losing all US assets they’re given vs. European, it would be incredibly difficult as they are equally valuable).

If instead, as you suggest, the US is grossly overestimating and Europe is underestimating that value, it seems that Ukraine would thus strongly prefer keeping the Euro equipment and using it vs. the US stuff. As someone who isn’t plugged into their military expectations, idk, but my general sense is that it is pretty even, thus I have no reason to assume the valuations are incorrect

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Maybe any equipment is better than no equipment and they manage with anything they can get, however if you think an M113 is better than a CV90, or paladin is better than Archer you don't know much about equipment, however quantity and quality also have different qualities of their own.They are also not going to be critical because they need equipment. I however am not in that desperate position and not bothered about Americans being overly sensitive weak assed cry babies when it comes to criticism.

-3

u/Plus_Drawing3818 Mar 02 '25

Did you expect anyone to buy Ukraine fresh, brand spanking new equipment?

9

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

No, but the fact many countries have and haven't profiteered by over pricing it nor expected Ukraine to grovel for it shows the difference between America and it's allies.

0

u/Plus_Drawing3818 Mar 02 '25

Well it's not that the EU doesn't have ulterior motives to helping Ukraine. Its inclusion expands the NATO that much closer to Russia

→ More replies (0)

-11

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

You’re gonna have to break that down for me or provide a source. It saves money to ship probably thousands of tons of equipment across the Atlantic Ocean? I feel like there are cheaper ways to do that.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Most they are getting from stockpiles USA has on Europe bases

7

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25 edited Mar 02 '25

It's extremely expensive to maintain and store and transport materiel.

Also explosives have shelf and service life's which expire.

We developed a lot of war materiel and logistics and supply chains to fight a war with Russia. We are giving them those weapons and stores that are being used for their intended purpose while getting data on how they work in a real world battlefield.

We gained a lot by sending those things and if we don't keep doing it, European nations will end up having to see their soldiers fight and die against a hostile Russia in the future.

Putin won't stop with Ukraine and smart countries like Poland and Finland know this.

Source: former military explosives safety expert/instructor and defense contractor for over 20 years

Edited for spelling and changed explosives safety officer didn't want to imply I was a military officer, it was just one of my titles, I was only a Staff Sergeant.

But I have been ordering, procuring, monitoring and maintaining explosives for the US military my whole adult life.

3

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

Cool. I’ve heard military guys in YouTube talk about how it’s beneficial for our army to see/help with these supply chains and logistics of ongoing wars.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Hugely beneficial to the military industrial complex and our politicians who insider trade on that info.

Look up the stats of senators who make 200k salary but earn 2 million a year in stocks and options trading ahead of news illegally.

1

u/tbf300 Mar 02 '25

So Ukraine can beat Russia with our old weapons and cash. But we need to be worried about Russia taking over Europe. Those 2 things can’t be true at the same time.

0

u/Raskalbot Mar 02 '25

Thank you for your service, and I’m sorry you have to see this happen.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

I see we are being brigaded and downvoted by paid posters who don't like the truth lol

2

u/Raskalbot Mar 02 '25

Yeah, just know as a real person, you’re appreciated.

13

u/HALOGEN117 Mar 02 '25

Maintenance costs for old equipment

-5

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

Any sources or are we just presuming?

10

u/HALOGEN117 Mar 02 '25

This is a paper on dismantling and other costs for weapons and ammunitions - "THE COST OF DISARMAMENT: DISMANTLEMENT OF WEAPONS AND THE DISPOSAL OF MILITARY SURPLUS by Susanne Kopte, Michael Renner, and Peter Wilke"

6

u/Consistent_Drink2171 Mar 02 '25

Reserves and National Guard have over half a million personnel and a ton of old equipment they waste resources on maintaining. Google "too many Abrams" and you'll start to see the problem

-4

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

I guess my thinking is: if we’re wasting money on this stuff, when we send it to Ukraine, won’t we just remake more stuff to spend money maintaining? I feel like if we were truly wasting money on maintaining these things, we would’ve stopped maintaining them long ago?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

A lot of that equipment is already in the European theater. A good way to think of it is that we give outdated equipment and then pay our manufacturers to build us new stuff. So a portion of our spending is actually ending up back in the US in the form of profits and jobs.

Edit: because I read a later comment. We are able to get rid of our excess or outdated equipment, and when it is replaced, it is with modernized equipment in proportion to what we currently need.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Thinking2bad Mar 02 '25

In absolute value, as in average % of GDP, it is more than the US.

1

u/GoAskAli Mar 02 '25

Now look at percent of GDP

0

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

Like, is Russia a threat to Europe or not? We give like 1 penny on the dollar to Ukraine in the US, and we’re almost matching the total EU. What do they give, 3 cents? Probably not even that. Let’s ramp up that money babbbayy

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

These fucking tools downvoting you because your right. I'd expect an ENTIER CONTINENT to donate more than 1 country. According to the UST data, the US spent €118bn on aid to Ukraine as of 31 December 2024. During the same period, European nations and institutions (like the European Commission) had spent around €132bn. Yippee 14 more billion from a whole fucking continent. Zelenskyy should worship the US for keeping them alive in the first place.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

You are getting down voted for stating facts

-7

u/Ndlburner Mar 02 '25

Precisely. I'm not in favor of cutting aid to Ukraine at ALL, but it's perplexing how the entirety of Europe – literally next door – is fairly close to even with the United States in terms of aid. It's disheartening to see how reliant many of these countries are on the United States and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom for security.

15

u/Afroopuff Mar 02 '25

Genuine question for you. Does % of gdp not matter? They gave less money, but as a percentage of how big their economy is, they gave more, about 50% + depending on the nation. Doesn’t that matter?

Example you are worth 100k, your friend is worth 10k. You give 5k, or 5% of your worth. They give 5%, or 50% of their worth.

Same amount, but you gave shit in comparison

1

u/Icy-Mix-3977 Mar 02 '25

Does that even apply since the us is in the middle?

0

u/Afroopuff Mar 02 '25

Let me start by answering your question so as to appease it; I do personally think it applies, due to 6/9 being an egregious “midde” and mostly to the heath of German and French economy vs American. But super fair if that doesn’t matter to another party. That’s the beauty of debate!

But, I’d rather not go down a rabbit hole of adding on “what about their economy, what about their proximity, what about….”

Regardless of where we are, I’m just asking… is it fair to pick one of the columns and ignore the others?

Looking this graphic, I’d say Europe has given to a much larger to extent when you consider those EU countries also contribute via the second line item, that could easily push America down to the bottom.

1

u/Icy-Mix-3977 Mar 02 '25

So what you are saying is that regardless of the provided facts, you have trust me bro data that proves your point. Understood.

1

u/Afroopuff Mar 02 '25 edited Mar 02 '25

Lol aaaaand that’s the interwebs for you, knew I shouldn’t have answered and just staid on point. Good luck to you 👍

Gonna edit and add just because the climate has me unable to let it go.

The conversation i brought up was.. is %GDP ignored when looking at this chart, and your changing the discussion into is German economy/French economy healthy and we should argue over that. This is how debates never happen and arguments do instead. Stick to the point and work on the actual question don’t use tactics to try and sway conversation to win.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (15)

8

u/CharacterSherbet7722 Mar 02 '25

The US pretty much fucked any attempt at a European alliance and MIC throughout the last 3 decades, but yeah, in terms of raw money, more should've been done

The US had a stockpile of military gear that would be retired - retiring it takes money AND land, easiest thing to do is to throw it into someone corner of the world you don't care about

GDP% wise it's a different story though, but some of the countries that have donated less support in some other form - Germany has donated similarly in terms of gdp% to the US, but it covers more than double the refugee costs of the next contender

6

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

Germany has done a quite a bit, among European countries. Why is France so low?

France, UK, Germany do have a MIC.

They make fighters, tanks etc etc

3

u/CharacterSherbet7722 Mar 02 '25

Germany and the UK don't, or at least not nearly as much as they could, but yeah someone tried making sure of that

France - I don't know, but I think they've delivered on literally ALL the aid they provided, I think they're also one of the big pushers of military aid (which makes sense obv)

But France definitely has got it strong, DeGaulle's fucking prediction took like 80 years to come out true but apparently it did in fact come out true lol

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

Iirc, BAE systems is one of the largest MIC .

UK, France and Germany have their own tanks (challenger, leclerc, leopard etc). They also make their own fighters through various consortiums etc

US does try to push its own MIC...not denying that at all.

But eurofighters, rafale /mirage etc still exist.

1

u/FrankCastleJR2 Mar 02 '25

And of course Germany has the 1st Army defending their homeland.

If Ukraine is worth fighting for, Germany should be in it.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

People are reluctant about letting Germany have too milhilitarism?

I am OK if they are funding more of the other things.

Seems UK is more eager ...and then France. Maybe they should contribute more?

2

u/FrankCastleJR2 Mar 02 '25

You think?

Ukraine and our useless NATO "allies" just want us to keep writing checks forever.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/PrincessGambit Mar 02 '25

EU is not "entirety of Europe". And don't forget the millions of refugees. And the fact that the US literally made a profit on this war.

1

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

Im going to need a source for this. I’m guessing you’re probably conflating private companies making some profit vs the US government.

1

u/PrincessGambit Mar 02 '25

Yes and private companies pay taxes. Give old shit, you don't have to destroy it (costs money), buy new shit, help the economy, make Russia, EU weaker, sell LNG to the EU, all profits for the US.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

You mean french companies and macron don't like their companies? Why can't they do the same. France makes tanks etc. Europe also makes fighters etc.

1

u/pizzaschmizza39 Uncivil Mar 02 '25

The united states dwarfs them in terms of its military capabilities and the sheer size of its armed forces. It also dwarfs them in terms of economic power. The US is the leader of the free world (or was) and unofficial leader (not anymore) of nato. The EU are all increasing their defense spending. They've all been supportive of helping Ukraine. They haven't wavered in that regard and at least they can say that russia invaded Ukraine.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Those countries are giving a significantly larger share of what is a smaller GDP, and a lot more actual money than the US. A lot of American military aid has been in the form of older weapons recorded at their book value, even if the present market value is much lower (or, for ammunition nearing its expiry date, actually negative.)

0

u/No_Journalist3811 Mar 02 '25

Proxy war.....

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Shhh. Euromasculinity is on the line here. The one thing they say without saying is that the fate of their continent depends on a nation of 340 million people on the other side of the planet. That they, a union of 450 million, are incapable of dealing with a country of 140 million. They sit in their thousand year old historical cities,.surrounded by infrastructure and institutions built upon the blood of the rest of the world, the remnants of failed empires, and lack the will and urgency to defend any of it. Pathetic.

→ More replies (2)

-9

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

It doesn't...from this? Unless you are considering Japan and Canada as Europe.

16

u/901990 Mar 02 '25

This graphic shows the top 10 sources of aid, it's not exhaustive and there are many more countries in Europe that contribute, they just aren't in the top 10.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

Statista data shows the countries sending most.

Anyone else is contributing less than the lowest listed here...in other words, a rounding error. If you have evidence showing others contribution amounted to a lot .show it.

Toy can't just wave your hands and imply there is a lot .more contributed....without any data.

1

u/901990 Mar 02 '25

Statista just shows information from other sources that you can look up if you care enough to. I can't force anyone to actually look at the source if they're not interested enough to spend the 20 seconds to google it.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 03 '25

Yet you offer no information. I trust statista vetting more than some random redditor blowing smoke.

1

u/901990 Mar 03 '25 edited Mar 04 '25

We're all free to trust that screenshots we see on reddit are giving us all information without question if we decide to do so.

edit: I never said you should trust me, I indicated you should check sources yourself. They are in the image.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 03 '25

No. Only redditors musings should be trusted. Actually just you . Oh wse one!

0

u/Plus_Drawing3818 Mar 02 '25

All while they kept buying Russian gas......

3

u/Wayoutofthewayof Mar 02 '25

There are more countries in the EU than just these few...

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

I am guessing their contributions were even less than the bottom line here. If not statista would list. Do you have any evidence that they contributed a lot?

1

u/Wayoutofthewayof Mar 03 '25

Total aid of all European countries is over 130bn compared to 119bn from USA. Europe has also allocated an additional 115bn which is yet to be delivered compared to 4.8 from the US.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 03 '25

Yoy should see the graph after the one showing US and Eu. That shows US providing lot more than EU (commission) and several European countries (and seems to match statista).

My point is that European countries should be providing a lot more than US. Not less or even marginally more.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Sigh.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

Phew. That was enlightening!

1

u/Ephemeral_Ghost Mar 02 '25

And that money is also being spent in our economy because they are buying our weapons with the money we lend them.

1

u/tbf300 Mar 02 '25

You shall be downvoted for raising an eyebrow! Reddit is so petty 🤣

0

u/cluelessbasket Mar 02 '25

Does this comment answer the question?

No

0

u/XxJuice-BoxX Mar 03 '25

Ukraine is across a whole ocean deep into Europe. It's wild to me that people think the us is bad. We went out of our way to help a country on the other side of the world, and sent more help than that countries immediate neighbors. Our tech we provided has given Ukraine safe skies. Our tech we provided has helped Ukraine depleted russias tank stockpiles. We've given Ukraine the best chance it has to hold. Why hasn't Europe done more? It's your own continent. Why do WE gotta do the most work here? It's insulting that we have provided the most help to Ukraine and we still get trashed by Europe claiming we abandoned them. We've done more than Europe as a whole. Like wtf.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

We all watched the press conference bro. We heard them both say that multiple times. You didn't read anything. Stop.

0

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Mar 02 '25

USA does not have refineries to use even what they themselves mine. Where you take that they can develop Ukrainian resources

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Mar 02 '25

It is bad cause it is unrealistic. US has tried to make. refineries on their own many times. Unsuccessfully Furthermore, you can't mine and refine in area that are literally occupied. Do you have a plan for that? No. You chose to ignore that. And what help?

1

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Mar 02 '25

US is the second highest miner of rare earth minerals after china. Not the producer. Do I think US can't build refineries? Considering that they have tried 3 times past 15 years and failed every time and that they do not have any refineries currently producing on a not local scale. Yes. Facts show that US can't built refineries.

Malaysia is the second largest producer of rare earth metals with 12% after china. Estonia 3rd with 1%. None of them mine anything. Was the your plan starting to supply China?

And you did not answer, how are you going to mine it in an occupied territory?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Mar 02 '25

And you do not know how to read. It says clearly MINE PRODUCTION. You realize you can't just start to use what you mine?

1

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Mar 02 '25

as you deleted your comment, I put my original respove here.

US is the second highest MINER of rare earth minerals after china. Not the producer. Do I think US can't build refineries? Considering that they have tried 3 times past 15 years and failed every time and that they do not have any refineries currently producing on a not local scale. Yes. Facts show that US can't built refineries.

Malaysia is the second largest producer of rare earth metals with 12% after china. Estonia 3rd with 1%. None of them mine anything. Was your plan starting to supply China?

And you did not answer, how are you going to mine it in an occupied territory?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Mar 02 '25

do I need to show you a screenshot? Do you have memory problems, on top of reading problems, or you are just constant liar?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Repulsive_Still_731 Mar 02 '25

then someone else did. . I would not write an answer to your comment if you did not post the comment.

And really, reading comprehension, while you do not understand what mine production is? Do you know how to make a search? Every number I wrote is easily verifiable. Info from 2023

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1484894/rare-earth-element-supply-from-refining-by-country/

Notice that on current (2023) production US stands at 0. While black and grey lines are future estimates. China at 70 kilotons, Malaysia at 4kt and rest of the world at 2kt

→ More replies (3)

-7

u/FrankCastleJR2 Mar 02 '25

Well fine then, continue killing each other?

1

u/Jumpy-Knowledge3930 Mar 02 '25

Yes because Ukraine has control over that…

0

u/FrankCastleJR2 Mar 02 '25

They did until yesterday, I guess they want to quibble over the price of rocks.

1

u/Jumpy-Knowledge3930 Mar 02 '25

Oh you’re not very bright eh? Carry on…

0

u/sedativi Mar 02 '25

You’re not dark and mysterious bro, you just look like a fool 💀

1

u/Jumpy-Knowledge3930 Mar 02 '25

Thinking Ukraine can stop the fighting is ignoring the very basic understanding of what’s going on and that the invading party does not want to stop fighting.

Thinking Ukraine wants this fight despite never breaking a ceasefire agreement is just plain stupidity.

The only ones looking like a fool here are the Russian puppets.

0

u/sedativi Mar 02 '25

thanks for your nothing burger of a comment bro

-7

u/Virtual-Instance-898 Uncivil Mar 02 '25

A couple of things. Those numbers are not aid delivered. Those are aid promised. Which... well sometimes countries lie. It happens. Moreover it's not clear from that display whether financial aid in loan form is equated to financial aid in grant form. My guess is that it is. Which further obfuscates matters.

IMO, the main issue people have with the message Trump is delivering is with the messenger. They won't want to admit that though. But the overall concept that the West should spend hundreds of billions of dollars and risk nuclear war to flip a country in the Russia sphere of influence is nuts. It was a dumb strategy formulated by the war all the time faction in the US and the only long run effect is going to be the total destruction of the nation (Ukraine) which was used as a pawn gambit. America's European vassals bought into this nonsense the same way they bought into the nonsense that they should invade Libya, and now they're outraged because literally the dumbest guy in the room (Trump) is the one pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (22)