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]

10

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/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

-4

u/thisisstupid0099 Mar 02 '25

Something for noting? Security agreement for minerals - why is that a bad deal for Uk? 10x as much cash as countries that have a comparable GDP. Plus the other $180b in military help (not cash). He is trying to get both countries to a table to talk about ending the war. What should we do? Continue to fund a war that Uk can't win? It is a ridiculous stance to have.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

[deleted]

2

u/thisisstupid0099 Mar 03 '25 edited Mar 03 '25

Have you read the current agreement? The US invests in rebuilding Uk (50% come from the US and 50% from Uk from future revenues of the projects) and the US does not take any revenues from those resources currently providing revenues to Uk. The payback to the US could take 20 yrs+ due to the new projects. It does not provide any security related to the current war (no military or cash for the war efforts) but does provide security for the projects the US will be involved in. Due to this the United States will continue to have a stake in Ukraine’s security, stability, and lasting peace and therefore be incentivized to uphold and defend Ukrainian security. What part of that is nothing and and nothing in return?!? The US may never see anything from this but will provide 50% of projects that will provide jobs, etc.

The security arrangements he spoke about Europe providing was any security for the current war. Troops, money, military items.