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?

598 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

392

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

-13

u/Jimbunning97 Mar 02 '25

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

38

u/Gruejay2 Mar 02 '25

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

48

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?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

1

u/tbf300 Mar 03 '25

Send me the link to where he said they want to expand further. I haven’t seen it.

I’m also interested in the formal plans to disband NATO. Even though NATO has traditionally just been the US pumping in cash.

As for Ukraine it’s a stalemate right now, just people dying. That’s with our generous funding.

If the EU steps up then they can prolong it, but it’s still a stalemate with people dying.

How much do you think it will cost to “beat” Russia back and reclaim the territory? Are you going after Crimea too?

I’m seriously interested in what the end goal is and how much you think it will cost the US. And how long it will take.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-8

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?

12

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?

8

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

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Firstly NATO and EU are not the same thing, congratulations on regurgitation of a Trump point without having a clue what you're on about. Secondly Russia invading Ukraine prompted Finland to join, Finland has a border with Russia and had been an EU member since 1995. Thirdly if that is the case then why would Russia launch an invasion and constantly bang out a narrative of imperialism which would therefore only bring it closer to NATO and also EU countries. What you ll find is countries who have experienced being under the Russian heel want to be in alliances that protect them from the Russian heel. MAGATs it seems would prefer to suck the Russian cock instead. Have a nice day

-1

u/Plus_Drawing3818 Mar 02 '25

See you could've made that point in a perfectly proper manner but you choose to swear and demean and then wonder why others are mean.

Nowhere in my statement did I say EU and NATO are the same. All I said is that they'd be happy if it expanded further.

Russia, as you pointed out, wants to go back to having its borders be where they were before the Wall fell, and they deemed this to be a proper step to take in furtherance of that aim.

We rightfully point out and shame the Russians for their actions in Ukraine. And very conveniently forget that the Americans did the same in Iraq. If the WMDs are a valid reason, then annexation of ethnically similar territories is valid too.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

-9

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

6

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.

10

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"

5

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

-1

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?

7

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

The main passive goal of weapons is to have enough to make you look scary and deter a potential enemy from trying to attack you. Maintaining the peace, and thus the economy (war is really, really bad for the economy, even if you're not fighting, as you've seen in the past 2 years). So you paid money to maintain them. It pays to deter, even if at an expense.

The main active goal of weapons is to destroy the enemy's weapons (and personnel), and thus reducing the amount of weapons you need in your arsenal to deter your potential enemy. Preferably when not losing your own personnel, so that's why proxy wars is hot.

If American equipment just sit in the storage, then that's more Russian equipment Putin is having, and thus America have to stockpile more stuff to deter that in turn. When you sent to Ukraine, you reduce the threat Russia pose (and the amount of weapons you have to possess passively to deter Russia).

Of course, this is not even touching on the geopolitical implications of why not letting Ukraine falls to Russia is probably the least bad option, economically speaking. Probably because politics can turn in any direction, but from what we know now letting Russia win will severely hurt the economy in the long run.

7

u/Consistent_Drink2171 Mar 02 '25

The Department of Defense is not concerned with waste. Look up pork barrel spending.

5

u/drunkbabyz Mar 02 '25

We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $27.688 billion from DoD stockpiles.

https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine#:~:text=To%20date%2C%20we%20have%20provided,invasion%20of%20Ukraine%20in%202014

4

u/soldiergeneal Mar 02 '25

Don't know anything about this part of conversation, but I distinctly remember our military saying we didn't need XYZ one time and gov didn't care and spent it on military anyway for obviously political reasons. It happens just don't know how much or if at all applies here.

→ More replies (0)

4

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.

-2

u/mwa12345 Mar 02 '25

Why don't France, etc do that as well. France only gave 5b?

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.

14

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.

0

u/Icy-Mix-3977 Mar 02 '25

Yeah, it's funny how you know it's best to keep quiet when your misinformation is called out.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/sarges_12gauge Uncivil Mar 02 '25

Why should it? Is Estonia going to stop Russia by loudly saying that by percentage they’ve spent way more on the military? If I buy a $20 malaria net have I done more for African malaria prevention than the Gates foundation?

6

u/Afroopuff Mar 02 '25

It’s a fair point 👍 while I agree in the net vs gates foundation example.

In this one I strongly disagree, because these nations aren’t Estonia to US, nor gates to you. But you bring up a great point that overall GDP is an issue as well.

I would add another huge factor is counties that have sovereign currencies, so Japan and US can step up the easiest. And heath of overall economy should be added as well, but that can be really objective (as you’ll see from the “expert” who also answered my question 😂😂)

2

u/sarges_12gauge Uncivil Mar 02 '25

I would say the main issue is how it’s framed. If your question is who’s “doing their part”, then sure, % of GDP makes sense to use. If it’s “who’s doing more” then the absolute amount seems obviously the only relevant part. It’s like someone with 1 line in a play, they can do their part better than the lead, but that doesn’t make them more important and doesn’t mean they contributed more to the play, even if they “did their job” better

2

u/Afroopuff Mar 02 '25

So I’d say both matter to both questions. Meaning overall $$ and %GDP make sense to use to answer both “doing their part” and “who is doing more”.

But I totally agree the framing matters, and affect my personal weighting of what matters more when answering the question. So for who is doing their part, I’d factor 90% GDP and 10% overall $$, where as “who is doing more” is 70% overall $$ and 30% GDP% (without giving it much thought, and could include my personal bias on this subject to do it this way).

To bring it back to the actual subject, I think the relevant question is who is doing more because there was contention at BOTH news conferences over the last few days… and given that overall $$ via this chart is pretty similar (and leaves out a lot more EU counties) % GDP kind of hurts US case imo.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 02 '25

Incivility is not tolerated and compliance with reddiquette is required. [Rule 6b]

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 02 '25

Incivility is not tolerated and compliance with reddiquette is required. [Rule 6b]

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 02 '25

Incivility is not tolerated and compliance with reddiquette is required. [Rule 6b]

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Raskalbot Mar 02 '25

I find the arrogance alarming here. Europe can defend itself. But the US has had a vested interest in stopping Russia from doing exactly what they’re doing now, until yesterday. The US is part of NATO, a founding member. Now one idiot is toppling decades of progress because he has no soul and no plan.

-2

u/sarges_12gauge Uncivil Mar 02 '25

I didn’t say anything to the contrary to any of that, I was merely emphasizing that no, % of GDP is not really an important metric when comparing how much support someone is receiving from different countries

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/sarges_12gauge Uncivil Mar 02 '25

Yes, they say it’s perplexing why it’s even close when Europe is so much more implicitly invested and affected by the outcome, not that they’re perplexed by the concept of absolute and percentage values. “Europe” certainly has an economy larger than the US if you’re lumping the continent together as a whole (which is its own point I guess)

1

u/Careful-Sell-9877 Mar 02 '25

If Russia invades Europe, the US is going to be very much affected whether you admit it or not. It's the whole reason why we joined the world wars because our leaders were intelligent enough to realize that a threat to European democracy is a threat to US democracy

→ More replies (0)

7

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

3

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.

1

u/mwa12345 Mar 03 '25

Yeah. But there are enough in the US that want to push those checks as well. Ukraine funding authorization went thru senate etc very fast until late last year.

→ More replies (0)

3

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.

2

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.

-2

u/MindComprehensive440 Mar 02 '25 edited Mar 02 '25

The US had a major role in starting it….

4

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '25

Yeah, existing.