Unfortunately, it looks like western military aid is drying up and the Russian war machine has not. They may have to accept a “peace” wherein Russia keeps the territory they conquered - although,...
Unfortunately, it looks like western military aid is drying up and the Russian war machine has not. They may have to accept a “peace” wherein Russia keeps the territory they conquered - although, if things stay as is, Russia may try to take another bite into Ukrainian territory first.
US aid holdups aside, it’s quite strange to think how little Western Europe as a whole has been contributing. They really shouldn’t be getting dwarfed by the US, when the war is in their doorstep. Russia’s GDP is about where Italy is, alone. Of course, Putin can mobilize the full might of his, but still, add together Western Europe and it’s not particularly close.
“Voting on this aid, it’s a matter of life and death — we depend on our partners, especially the U.S.,” said Bohdan Krylyvenko, 38, sitting in the sunshine outside a fast-food restaurant. “You might think, ‘Oh, McDonald’s is open, everything looks OK. But it’s totally not OK.”
The US should not (in a broad, ideological sense) be the most critical line of support. In the end, the US is an ocean away, with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd strongest navies in the world, and is surrounded by friendly nations. The US is the world's largest oil producer. They will never be invaded by Russia, and will not have to deal with direct aftershocks like refugees from invaded countries. They have secure domestic lines of oil and gas.
It's always going to be possible for US aid to get gridlocked by politics when it's in service of more vague and broader notions like the protecting democracy, protecting trade, or overall US geopolitical strategy. The backbone of Ukrainian support should be the countries who are literally half a day's train ride away from Putin's soliders.
There’s been a lot of incorrect expectations - that the sanctions would cripple Russia, that the people would rise up against Putin, that Ukraine would have the strength against an incompetent and ill equipped Russia to at least reclaim their territory up to crimea.
As others have said, in terms of pure financial aid, Europe has done more for Ukraine than the US. [1] The US has only outpaced all other countries through materiel support. But it's worth bearing...
Exemplary
As others have said, in terms of pure financial aid, Europe has done more for Ukraine than the US. [1] The US has only outpaced all other countries through materiel support.
But it's worth bearing in mind that the US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. [2] I mean, of the top five largest military air forces in the world, the US Air force ranks first, the US Army ranks second, and the US Navy ranks fourth. [3] Simply put, the US spends a stupid amount of money on defense. That's not Europe's fault; that's America's choice. It's not surprising that America is better capable of arming Ukraine than Europe.
But despite this, Europe still confers military benefits to the US. The US has built a stupidly large military, having deciding to take it upon themselves to be the world's police force. Europe provides room for US military bases and nuclear weapon silos. The US and much of Europe have a joint defense agreement through NATO. And it's not as if NATO's defense clause has only ever been invoked for Europe's benefit; on the contrary, article 5 has only been invoked once and only by the US, which is how Europe managed to get dragged into the 20+ year war in Afghanistan following 9/11. If the war in Ukraine expands to Poland, the US will be duty-bound to respond, assuming the US still intends to make good on its promises as Europe already has. It's in the US's interest to keep the war contained.
The problem here isn't that Europe hasn't provided enough support to Ukraine. As I mentioned at the start, Europe has contributed more financially than anyone else. The problem here is that the US is wavering on its pledges and proving to be an unreliable partner. At worse, if Trump and his allies are further empowered, NATO could collapse altogether. [4]
How is that not Europe's choice? They can very well choose to spend money on armaments. Evidently what is being provided to Ukraine is far from enough. Presidents since Obama have urged Europe...
Simply put, the US spends a stupid amount of money on defense. That's not Europe's fault; that's America's choice. It's not surprising that America is better capable of arming Ukraine than Europe.
How is that not Europe's choice? They can very well choose to spend money on armaments. Evidently what is being provided to Ukraine is far from enough. Presidents since Obama have urged Europe that American military interests are shifting to the east. Putin absorbed Crimea in 2014; it's not like there hasn't been any warning.
It's also been 3 years since Ukraine was invaded. Russia has ramped up their military productions; Western Europe has had time to as well.
The problem here is that the US is wavering on its pledges and proving to be an unreliable partner. At worse, if Trump and his allies are further empowered, NATO could collapse altogether. [4]
The US does not have any kind of defensive treaty or obligations to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member or part of any other military obligations; the only treaty between the two is that the US promised not to invade Ukraine as part of the nuclear disarmament agreement, and as far as I can tell the US has indeed not invaded Ukraine.
Again, it's a matter of practical interest. If Ukraine was in NATO, it would be a different story, but as is, the US providing military aid is no different than the US providing aid to the regime it propped up in Afghanistan. It's subject to the whims of politics because it's in the end, not something needed, nor promised - it's just part of the foreign policy machinations of the current administration.
The US will never face direct consequences from Russian aggression, aid from it will always be unstable, because its populace will never have non-existential foreign policy ambitions as their number one priority (in fact, it's about as low as it gets on American voter's priority list).
The US has been telegraphing for decades that it will provide military support to Europe. I don't see how Europe is at fault for trusting the US to follow through with its promises. I agree that...
How is that not Europe's choice? They can very well choose to spend money on armaments. Evidently what is being provided to Ukraine is far from enough. Presidents since Obama have urged Europe that American military interests are shifting to the east. Putin absorbed Crimea in 2014; it's not like there hasn't been any warning.
The US has been telegraphing for decades that it will provide military support to Europe. I don't see how Europe is at fault for trusting the US to follow through with its promises.
I agree that Europe will need to increase its military spending -- and in fact, Europe has increased its defense spending following the invasion of Ukraine. But if the US wants to reduce its support to Ukraine, it needs to communicate that intention clearly and give its allies time to adjust, not suddenly and capriciously. Currently Congress is sitting on an aid package because a few right-wing extremists would rather have that aid sent to the southern border. It's total nonsense. Europe can't plan around nonsense. Sure, I guess Europe could raise a US-sized army under the assumption that America will ultimately betray its allies. But that's fundamentally an issue with America, not Europe. No alliance -- not even the EU -- can withstand a lack of trust.
The US does not have any kind of defensive treaty or obligations to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member or part of any other military obligations
Of course not. But Ukraine does share a border with a NATO country (Poland), and Russia could justify an invasion of Poland under the same twisted logic it used to invade Ukraine. It's in NATO's benefit to ensure that Russian aggression is contained.
NATO's most valuable asset is its unity. Ideally NATO would like to deter adversaries without any shots being fired on NATO territory. If NATO capitulates to Russia due to intra-party US squabbling, Russia will have succeeded in undermining the alliance.
The US will never face direct consequences from Russian aggression, aid from it will always be unstable, because its populace will never have non-existential foreign policy ambitions as their number one priority (in fact, it's about as low as it gets on American voter's priority list).
A Russian invasion of Europe would have devastating consequences on the international economy, America included.
I would not say the first part is true. Really, it's been the opposite. The US has been telegraphing that it's retreating from intrusive foreign policy engagements, and certainly in Europe. If you...
I would not say the first part is true. Really, it's been the opposite. The US has been telegraphing that it's retreating from intrusive foreign policy engagements, and certainly in Europe. If you couldn't tell that the US's main focus is China and the east in the last decade, then you don't deserve your job as a foreign minister in Europe. I mean, he's a loon, but Trump threatened to leave NATO - regardless of the logistics of that, this is a man who may be president in a year's time. If that wasn't a signal for Europe, I don't know what would be. There was a lot of talk about being more independent from the US, but no actual action done. Again, Crimea was taken all the way back in 2014.
In the end, humans are highly local creatures. Voters do not care about foreign policy unless it directly threatens them. The history of American interventionism is that politicians must sell the public on it - and it's a hard sell, and one that fades with time. Ukraine is exactly that - high public interest and favoritism in the beginning, and by now US voters just don't care. And that's why aid is now a political cudgel used by Republicans against Biden - it can be now.
Europe plans around "none-sense" by not being entirely dependent on America for foreign policy. Again, my opinion is that it is inevitable that voters stop caring about conflicts thousands of miles away where they don't have any direct connection. Political nonsense of some form or another is inevitable. Only for the people directly affected does the threat stay constant in their citizen's heads - or it should anyway. Evidently it doesn't at the moment.
Relying on a uninvolved foreign democracy for indefinite military protection can only be said to be the height of naivety, and certainly we're seeing it now.
The problem with this is that the US absolutely will face consequences, it will just take more time. US economy and geopolitical position require Europe to be stable and to see US as its most...
Again, it's a matter of practical interest. If Ukraine was in NATO, it would be a different story, but as is, the US providing military aid is no different than the US providing aid to the regime it propped up in Afghanistan. It's subject to the whims of politics because it's in the end, not something needed, nor promised - it's just part of the foreign policy machinations of the current administration.
The US will never face direct consequences from Russian aggression, aid from it will always be unstable, because its populace will never have non-existential foreign policy ambitions as their number one priority (in fact, it's about as low as it gets on American voter's priority list).
The problem with this is that the US absolutely will face consequences, it will just take more time. US economy and geopolitical position require Europe to be stable and to see US as its most important and reliable partner. Isolationism may be "fair", but it absolutely will make the US worse off in the medium term.
We would greatly prefer if mainstream political opinions realized and reflected this instead of having to go through the motions and seeing the consequences play out in real life because fixing what's broken always takes more time and makes everyone (hopefully temporarily) worse off.
I'll piggyback on this comment to present my concurring opinion. I'd go as far as to say that regardless of whether it's an oil producer with nuclear weapons, if isolationist politics prevail in...
I'll piggyback on this comment to present my concurring opinion.
The problem with this is that the US absolutely will face consequences, it will just take more time. US economy and geopolitical position require Europe to be stable and to see US as its most important and reliable partner. Isolationism may be "fair", but it absolutely will make the US worse off in the medium term.
I'd go as far as to say that regardless of whether it's an oil producer with nuclear weapons, if isolationist politics prevail in the US, the country will lose its dominant position forever, and find itself relegated to a much smaller role in the world stage, with a direct impact in the wealth and quality of life of its citizens. There are other gas station countries with nuclear weapons - Russia, for one - and that alone clearly isn't enough.
And please, I don't have to be told about all the other ways in which the US is a capable, productive country. I know! But the US is not special, not nearly as special as some US citizens may think. US industry is already in decline. There are other countries with brilliant minds and technological innovation. Other countries capable of producing excellent entertainment and eager to disseminate their own culture. Other countries ready to step in and grow the same crops, sell the same weapons, put more things in orbit. If the US isn't internationally involved, I foresee US-backed trade organizations and agreements, including intellectual property agreements, losing much of their relevance. Not to mention, of course, the US dollar.
I think both sides of the arguments being presented in this comments section have a point, and I agree that many american voters will not care about the long term, or about what's happening far away from their borders. Hell, when China displaces the US as the leading world power, they'll never quite understand what, why, or how it happened. It will still happen, though, and I find it highly undesirable regardless. I don't see myself in the values professed by China's leadership.
The US finds itself in a position of having to intervene in other countries because they put themselves in that position in the first place - because this is beneficial to their country. The sudden argument that there is no tacit agreement regarding this arrangement after americans benefited from it for two generations seems like the pinnacle of hipocrisy.
Obviously europeans also benefited in the ways people have already explained, and no doubt it was foolish of us not to be better prepared for this situation. But the same argument some have made about the short-sightedness of the american electorate also applies to the european ones. Could european voters have been sold on military spending during a time of peace, when that spending could have gone to projects they thought more urgent? Would that have been a wise political move?
How is it hypocritical for today's voters not to care about the commitments of the votes from two generations ago? Perhaps they needed a reminder that other democracies have a nasty habit of...
The sudden argument that there is no tacit agreement regarding this arrangement after americans benefited from it for two generations seems like the pinnacle of hipocrisy.
How is it hypocritical for today's voters not to care about the commitments of the votes from two generations ago?
Could european voters have been sold on military spending during a time of peace, when that spending could have gone to projects they thought more urgent?
Perhaps they needed a reminder that other democracies have a nasty habit of changing their minds at the worst times.
Long term planning can definitely be a weakness in democracies where politicians rotate after serving a short term (or need to "buy" votes to hold on to their positions).
Long term planning can definitely be a weakness in democracies where politicians rotate after serving a short term (or need to "buy" votes to hold on to their positions).
Sure, but that's democracy for you. Voters have no appetite for long term geopolitics. Humans are highly local creatures in the end. The price of tomatoes going up by $0.5/pound is more impactful...
Sure, but that's democracy for you. Voters have no appetite for long term geopolitics. Humans are highly local creatures in the end. The price of tomatoes going up by $0.5/pound is more impactful to American voters than a hundred Ukrainian children who were shelled to death.
Long term foreign policy always has to be sold to voters by politicians. And sometimes they fail to sell it. It happens. You can't rely on it.
I agree with your general position that trusting American voters is not a reliable foreign policy strategy but I'm not sure why you don't think Europe has also realized this. You can't make these...
It's also been 3 years since Ukraine was invaded. Russia has ramped up their military productions; Western Europe has had time to as well.
The problem at the moment doesn't seem to be money, it's specific weapons and ammunition. Europe is giving Ukraine just about everything that isn't required for the bare minimum to defend...
The problem at the moment doesn't seem to be money, it's specific weapons and ammunition. Europe is giving Ukraine just about everything that isn't required for the bare minimum to defend themselves. Germany is giving most of their air defence, many air forces are giving F16's and Gripens and they're so desperate for artillery shells that they're starting a fund to collectively buy it from abroad.
At the moment they've reached the limit of their existing stockpiles and production capacity. Areas where they can scale up production is in modifying old weapons with cheap technology like drones and glide bombs, but this takes time and innovation.
This war has definitely woken Europe's sleepy MIC and they've had to make a lot of strides to expand production capacity. When the war started Europe could make about 20,000 shells per month, by...
At the moment they've reached the limit of their existing stockpiles and production capacity.
This war has definitely woken Europe's sleepy MIC and they've had to make a lot of strides to expand production capacity. When the war started Europe could make about 20,000 shells per month, by next year it will be approaching 200,000.
Ultimately I think if the US can get a final big aid package together before the election begins in full Europe will be able to keep Ukraine in the fight indefinitely within a year or so, but it remains to be seen if they can get there.
I should have made your point explicitly, as your point is the more pressing issue. Europe can't provide what it doesn't have. I only meant to explain why it's reasonable that Europe would lack...
I should have made your point explicitly, as your point is the more pressing issue. Europe can't provide what it doesn't have. I only meant to explain why it's reasonable that Europe would lack armaments compared to the US.
This actually hasn't been true for a while, at least in committed funds, although it's going to take another year or so at the current pace before EU military aid can actually replace US aid and...
US aid holdups aside, it’s quite strange to think how little Western Europe as a whole has been contributing. They really shouldn’t be getting dwarfed by the US, when the war is in their doorstep. Russia’s GDP is about where Italy is, alone. Of course, Putin can mobilize the full might of his, but still, add together Western Europe and it’s not particularly close.
This actually hasn't been true for a while, at least in committed funds, although it's going to take another year or so at the current pace before EU military aid can actually replace US aid and even still there will be capability gaps. But EU military aid in dollars is almost on par with US aid now and when you include financial aid it dwarfs US aid.
I remember on reddit a few months into the whole thing Europeans on the Ukraine sub were telling everyone to not post raw $ amounts sent in aid and to express it as a % of GDP because the US was...
I remember on reddit a few months into the whole thing Europeans on the Ukraine sub were telling everyone to not post raw $ amounts sent in aid and to express it as a % of GDP because the US was always above everyone else when you did it by raw $ amount.
Western Europe, in my eyes at least, both wants the US to foot the war bill but also look like they're the ones doing the most (without actually doing the most).
But measuring it on a per capita basis is the only thing that does make sense when comparing small and large counties. Estonia can really care, but can only contribute small amounts in absolute...
But measuring it on a per capita basis is the only thing that does make sense when comparing small and large counties. Estonia can really care, but can only contribute small amounts in absolute terms.
I’m not saying that Europe are doing enough me shouldn’t do more, but dont knock per capita comparisons.
It would however be completely fair to compare Europe as a whole versus USA- GDPs are very similar, populations more so (Europe has an advantage here).
Except per capita doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Estonia contributes 100% of its GDP, it still isn't doing as much as a larger country. Estonia not being physically able to support more...
Except per capita doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Estonia contributes 100% of its GDP, it still isn't doing as much as a larger country. Estonia not being physically able to support more isn't important.
What matters is equipment and weaponry on the ground in Ukraine, and yes the US provided more. The only reason people want to use % of GDP is to try and "level the playing field" in who provided the most aid. Except it isn't a competition, it's a fight for people's lives and their homes. I don't care if doing it as a % of GDP makes Estonia feel better about themselves because I don't care about how Estonia feels about themselves, I care about Ukraine having the equipment needed to defend themselves.
Europe* has actually surpassed the US in 'committed' military aid dollars. If the US doesn't pass more aid, they will pass the US in total military aid delivered to Ukraine this year....
and yes the US provided more
Europe* has actually surpassed the US in 'committed' military aid dollars. If the US doesn't pass more aid, they will pass the US in total military aid delivered to Ukraine this year.
Why is that? I find your position pretty nonsensical to be honest. Also, I didn't actually add all of Europe, just the top contributors: Country Military Aid, €B Population, millions Germany 17.7...
Why is that? I find your position pretty nonsensical to be honest.
Also, I didn't actually add all of Europe, just the top contributors:
Country
Military Aid, €B
Population, millions
Germany
17.7
83.8
UK
9.1
66.97
Denmark
8.4
5.903
Netherlands
4.4
17.7
Norway
3.8
5.457
Poland
3
36.82
Sweden
2
10.49
Finland
1.6
5.556
Top European contributors total: 50€B in committed military aid, 233 million people.
US total: 42.2€B in committed military aid, 333 million people.
I don't really know what you expect then, turning into a bit of a cyclical argument here. You're arguing that Europe isn't doing enough compared to the US, however in pure monetary and hardware...
I don't really know what you expect then, turning into a bit of a cyclical argument here.
You're arguing that Europe isn't doing enough compared to the US, however in pure monetary and hardware terms its impossible for any country to compare to the US. However, if you look at per capita figures, a lot of European countries are contributing close to or more than the US but you say this comparison isn't fair. So to make it fair a poster compares some of the biggest contributors in Europe against the US and suddenly that's not a fair comparison so the goalposts move again.
Then suddenly it's that comparisons aren't the point and it suddenly becomes a call to emotion talking about how you just want more weapons and hardware on the ground in Ukraine.
We all want that to be fair, I won't argue with you there, but weapons, ammo and shells don't just magically appear. Europe's defence industries have been lazy, granted, but by next year there'll be a tenfold increase in the number of shells that can be made monthly and defence spending has been increasing massively across Europe for the past 7 or 8 years, never mind the past two once Russia invaded.
You're also forgetting that Europe isn't a hive mind. Within my own country, the UK has been training and arming Ukrainian soldiers since 2014, MI6 was right there with the US warning that Russia was going to invade in 2022 from the get go and has almost definitely been offering classified intelligence to Ukraine since then, and our special forces like the SAS, SBS, and probably even E Squadron have possibly been in Ukraine for some time offering support if reports are to be believed.
If you don’t want to use per capital then just compare Europe to USA, or individuals states of the USA to countries in Europe. Per capita is useful because choosing how granular to measure changes...
If you don’t want to use per capital then just compare Europe to USA, or individuals states of the USA to countries in Europe.
Per capita is useful because choosing how granular to measure changes the outcome of your analysis.
I guess what’s the question here? Who should up their game and contribute more? Well then it absolutely matters in per capita or per GDP or some other proportional comparator.
Another conclusion is: as Estonia I can’t hope to compare to the USA, so why bother trying at all? same for Portugal, Sweden, Poland, spain, France, Germany etc. Or… measure then as a group and suddenly each tiny contribution matters in combination.
From your original comment of:
“ Western Europe, in my eyes at least, both wants the US to foot the war bill but also look like they're the ones doing the most (without actually doing the most).”
If you only care about Ukraine having the equipment to defend itself then what really matters in this case is having the weapons and ammunition to hold out long enough for industrial capacity to...
If you only care about Ukraine having the equipment to defend itself then what really matters in this case is having the weapons and ammunition to hold out long enough for industrial capacity to increase to the amount required for that defence. This isn't a request for unlimited support into the indefinite future, it's a request to bridge the gap until Europe has that capacity. This is Europe's hour of need, and it's not simply money that is needed.
To be completely fair, if I'm not mistaken, you were once on here questioning whether to keep your American citizenship - a country you never lived in and felt you had absolutely no connection to....
Exemplary
I'll throw in an emotional component, which I'll allow myself to make as both a citizen of the US and Europe
To be completely fair, if I'm not mistaken, you were once on here questioning whether to keep your American citizenship - a country you never lived in and felt you had absolutely no connection to. It's an interesting position for one to argue from an EU perspective but as the citizen of a country which they have all but formally completely disavowed.
constant meddling of the US in our affairs
letting us being taken hostage by other countries
As an American who grew up in the States and has now lived in Europe for many years, I find this particular form of European doublethink especially irksome. Europeans tend to portray themselves of victims of US. I've encountered the narrative more than once about American culture "infecting" or "invading" European lands as if it was something inflicted upon them by a malevolent US and not because the citizens of those countries were freely choosing that culture - even when at a detriment to their own native one.
Similarly Europe is often portrayed as a victim of American meddling and, as put above, a "hostage" to US interests. It is certainly true that the US meddles in European affairs but dishonest to portray the EU as a hostage when the truth is that this is a policy expressly desired by Europe. European nations have enjoyed luxurious social welfare programs largely because of their reliance on the US for defense and geopolitical leadership. The EU talks a big game about wanting to stand on their own two feet but meanwhile is expanding the presence of the American military, especially in the North and East.
I am myself personally a non-interventionist and believe the US would be better off without meddling in world affairs but after many years of reflection on the subject and first hand experience living on four continents, I have begrudgingly come to admit that the world would suffer for the US to return to non-interventionism. Modern Europe would be unrecognizable without US support, again their lavish public spending and routine economic underperformance would be unsustainable if they had to support a military capable of defending the continent. Then there is the fact that in spite of America's "instigating wars all around the world," to borrow those words, Pax Americana is the most peaceful time in the entire recorded history of the world. Don't mistake me for a nationalist trying to glorify a country that I haven't lived in for over a decade and feel a more tenuous connection to by the day, I am a realist who understands that in the face of an entirely apathetic Europe a decision to align with a global military power has to be made and when choosing among the US, Russia, or China the US begins to not look so malevolent at all.
And, without digressing to far or too long from the extremely complicated relationship between the US and Europe, we should not forget that Europe too continues to practice colonialism to this very day - particularly in Africa, the Middle East, and, to a lesser extent, South America but because they can hide in the US' shadow gets to escape the critical focus that they also deserve.
Not exactly important, but I think you're underestimating the size of Ukraine here a bit, heh. Half a day's train ride is still eastern Europe, and we've been trying to help, but we don't have the...
The backbone of Ukrainian support should be the countries who are literally half a day's train ride away from Putin's soliders.
Not exactly important, but I think you're underestimating the size of Ukraine here a bit, heh. Half a day's train ride is still eastern Europe, and we've been trying to help, but we don't have the cash. By percentage of GDP our contributions have been acceptable imo, and I'm quite proud of our recent actions, namely finding a source of over 1 mil pieces of artillery ammunition and acting as a middleman in their purchase.
It is absolutely true that at least some countries in western Europe do not seem to understand the gravity of the situation at all though.
There’s been a lot of incorrect expectations - that the sanctions would cripple Russia, that the people would rise up against Putin, that Ukraine would have the strength against an incompetent and ill equipped Russia to at least reclaim their territory up to crimea.
These seem like beliefs of the public based on dubious evidence, not beliefs of analysts or people in charge. The effect of sanctions was weaker than hoped, but it's still important. Russians rising up against Putin was naive nonsense from the beginning (plus the alternatives to Putin are hardly better) and while people believed and believe that Ukraine may reclaim its territory, at no point was it considered a highly probable option.
Now I don't mean to be too high on hopium here, but both revolutions and collapses of war economies seem impossible until they happen, then they appear inevitable. I don't think hope of a regime...
The effect of sanctions was weaker than hoped, but it's still important. Russians rising up against Putin was naive nonsense from the beginning (plus the alternatives to Putin are hardly better)
Now I don't mean to be too high on hopium here, but both revolutions and collapses of war economies seem impossible until they happen, then they appear inevitable. I don't think hope of a regime change in Russia in 2022 was unfounded, it just didn't happen. And the fact that it seems like it wasn't even close doesn't (IMO) mean anything: History is full of "successful"* revolutions, it's full of "nahh, that's never going to amount to a revolution", but there's precious few situations where it looked genuinely close. Which IMO means that there must've been close calls that we can't readily identify as such. Mostly because a revolution's fate is kinda mostly decided before it's even really visible. A coup that doesn't capture the presidential palace isn't much of a coup, a popular revolution that doesn't mobilize millions in protests isn't much of a popular revolution.
As for the war economy, I'm not saying Russia's is close to collapse, though certainly closer than it was in 2022-01-01. But that it trucks along as if nothing happened is to do with massive government intervention to force it to do so. If that government loses its leverage, my guess is the Russian economy will be gone in no time flat.
* successful refering to achieving regime change, not necessarily improving the overall situation
That may be true but don't forget about PPP - Russia has a lot more capacity and capability than Italy does. You can probably get 2 or 3 Russian APC's (for example) whereas in Italy you could only...
Russia’s GDP is about where Italy is, alone.
That may be true but don't forget about PPP - Russia has a lot more capacity and capability than Italy does. You can probably get 2 or 3 Russian APC's (for example) whereas in Italy you could only get 1.
Unfortunately, it looks like western military aid is drying up and the Russian war machine has not. They may have to accept a “peace” wherein Russia keeps the territory they conquered - although, if things stay as is, Russia may try to take another bite into Ukrainian territory first.
US aid holdups aside, it’s quite strange to think how little Western Europe as a whole has been contributing. They really shouldn’t be getting dwarfed by the US, when the war is in their doorstep. Russia’s GDP is about where Italy is, alone. Of course, Putin can mobilize the full might of his, but still, add together Western Europe and it’s not particularly close.
The US should not (in a broad, ideological sense) be the most critical line of support. In the end, the US is an ocean away, with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd strongest navies in the world, and is surrounded by friendly nations. The US is the world's largest oil producer. They will never be invaded by Russia, and will not have to deal with direct aftershocks like refugees from invaded countries. They have secure domestic lines of oil and gas.
It's always going to be possible for US aid to get gridlocked by politics when it's in service of more vague and broader notions like the protecting democracy, protecting trade, or overall US geopolitical strategy. The backbone of Ukrainian support should be the countries who are literally half a day's train ride away from Putin's soliders.
There’s been a lot of incorrect expectations - that the sanctions would cripple Russia, that the people would rise up against Putin, that Ukraine would have the strength against an incompetent and ill equipped Russia to at least reclaim their territory up to crimea.
None of that has come true.
As others have said, in terms of pure financial aid, Europe has done more for Ukraine than the US. [1] The US has only outpaced all other countries through materiel support.
But it's worth bearing in mind that the US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. [2] I mean, of the top five largest military air forces in the world, the US Air force ranks first, the US Army ranks second, and the US Navy ranks fourth. [3] Simply put, the US spends a stupid amount of money on defense. That's not Europe's fault; that's America's choice. It's not surprising that America is better capable of arming Ukraine than Europe.
But despite this, Europe still confers military benefits to the US. The US has built a stupidly large military, having deciding to take it upon themselves to be the world's police force. Europe provides room for US military bases and nuclear weapon silos. The US and much of Europe have a joint defense agreement through NATO. And it's not as if NATO's defense clause has only ever been invoked for Europe's benefit; on the contrary, article 5 has only been invoked once and only by the US, which is how Europe managed to get dragged into the 20+ year war in Afghanistan following 9/11. If the war in Ukraine expands to Poland, the US will be duty-bound to respond, assuming the US still intends to make good on its promises as Europe already has. It's in the US's interest to keep the war contained.
The problem here isn't that Europe hasn't provided enough support to Ukraine. As I mentioned at the start, Europe has contributed more financially than anyone else. The problem here is that the US is wavering on its pledges and proving to be an unreliable partner. At worse, if Trump and his allies are further empowered, NATO could collapse altogether. [4]
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
[2] https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/us/politics/trump-2025-nato.html
How is that not Europe's choice? They can very well choose to spend money on armaments. Evidently what is being provided to Ukraine is far from enough. Presidents since Obama have urged Europe that American military interests are shifting to the east. Putin absorbed Crimea in 2014; it's not like there hasn't been any warning.
It's also been 3 years since Ukraine was invaded. Russia has ramped up their military productions; Western Europe has had time to as well.
The US does not have any kind of defensive treaty or obligations to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member or part of any other military obligations; the only treaty between the two is that the US promised not to invade Ukraine as part of the nuclear disarmament agreement, and as far as I can tell the US has indeed not invaded Ukraine.
Again, it's a matter of practical interest. If Ukraine was in NATO, it would be a different story, but as is, the US providing military aid is no different than the US providing aid to the regime it propped up in Afghanistan. It's subject to the whims of politics because it's in the end, not something needed, nor promised - it's just part of the foreign policy machinations of the current administration.
The US will never face direct consequences from Russian aggression, aid from it will always be unstable, because its populace will never have non-existential foreign policy ambitions as their number one priority (in fact, it's about as low as it gets on American voter's priority list).
The US has been telegraphing for decades that it will provide military support to Europe. I don't see how Europe is at fault for trusting the US to follow through with its promises.
I agree that Europe will need to increase its military spending -- and in fact, Europe has increased its defense spending following the invasion of Ukraine. But if the US wants to reduce its support to Ukraine, it needs to communicate that intention clearly and give its allies time to adjust, not suddenly and capriciously. Currently Congress is sitting on an aid package because a few right-wing extremists would rather have that aid sent to the southern border. It's total nonsense. Europe can't plan around nonsense. Sure, I guess Europe could raise a US-sized army under the assumption that America will ultimately betray its allies. But that's fundamentally an issue with America, not Europe. No alliance -- not even the EU -- can withstand a lack of trust.
Of course not. But Ukraine does share a border with a NATO country (Poland), and Russia could justify an invasion of Poland under the same twisted logic it used to invade Ukraine. It's in NATO's benefit to ensure that Russian aggression is contained.
NATO's most valuable asset is its unity. Ideally NATO would like to deter adversaries without any shots being fired on NATO territory. If NATO capitulates to Russia due to intra-party US squabbling, Russia will have succeeded in undermining the alliance.
A Russian invasion of Europe would have devastating consequences on the international economy, America included.
I would not say the first part is true. Really, it's been the opposite. The US has been telegraphing that it's retreating from intrusive foreign policy engagements, and certainly in Europe. If you couldn't tell that the US's main focus is China and the east in the last decade, then you don't deserve your job as a foreign minister in Europe. I mean, he's a loon, but Trump threatened to leave NATO - regardless of the logistics of that, this is a man who may be president in a year's time. If that wasn't a signal for Europe, I don't know what would be. There was a lot of talk about being more independent from the US, but no actual action done. Again, Crimea was taken all the way back in 2014.
In the end, humans are highly local creatures. Voters do not care about foreign policy unless it directly threatens them. The history of American interventionism is that politicians must sell the public on it - and it's a hard sell, and one that fades with time. Ukraine is exactly that - high public interest and favoritism in the beginning, and by now US voters just don't care. And that's why aid is now a political cudgel used by Republicans against Biden - it can be now.
Europe plans around "none-sense" by not being entirely dependent on America for foreign policy. Again, my opinion is that it is inevitable that voters stop caring about conflicts thousands of miles away where they don't have any direct connection. Political nonsense of some form or another is inevitable. Only for the people directly affected does the threat stay constant in their citizen's heads - or it should anyway. Evidently it doesn't at the moment.
Relying on a uninvolved foreign democracy for indefinite military protection can only be said to be the height of naivety, and certainly we're seeing it now.
The problem with this is that the US absolutely will face consequences, it will just take more time. US economy and geopolitical position require Europe to be stable and to see US as its most important and reliable partner. Isolationism may be "fair", but it absolutely will make the US worse off in the medium term.
We would greatly prefer if mainstream political opinions realized and reflected this instead of having to go through the motions and seeing the consequences play out in real life because fixing what's broken always takes more time and makes everyone (hopefully temporarily) worse off.
I'll piggyback on this comment to present my concurring opinion.
I'd go as far as to say that regardless of whether it's an oil producer with nuclear weapons, if isolationist politics prevail in the US, the country will lose its dominant position forever, and find itself relegated to a much smaller role in the world stage, with a direct impact in the wealth and quality of life of its citizens. There are other gas station countries with nuclear weapons - Russia, for one - and that alone clearly isn't enough.
And please, I don't have to be told about all the other ways in which the US is a capable, productive country. I know! But the US is not special, not nearly as special as some US citizens may think. US industry is already in decline. There are other countries with brilliant minds and technological innovation. Other countries capable of producing excellent entertainment and eager to disseminate their own culture. Other countries ready to step in and grow the same crops, sell the same weapons, put more things in orbit. If the US isn't internationally involved, I foresee US-backed trade organizations and agreements, including intellectual property agreements, losing much of their relevance. Not to mention, of course, the US dollar.
I think both sides of the arguments being presented in this comments section have a point, and I agree that many american voters will not care about the long term, or about what's happening far away from their borders. Hell, when China displaces the US as the leading world power, they'll never quite understand what, why, or how it happened. It will still happen, though, and I find it highly undesirable regardless. I don't see myself in the values professed by China's leadership.
The US finds itself in a position of having to intervene in other countries because they put themselves in that position in the first place - because this is beneficial to their country. The sudden argument that there is no tacit agreement regarding this arrangement after americans benefited from it for two generations seems like the pinnacle of hipocrisy.
Obviously europeans also benefited in the ways people have already explained, and no doubt it was foolish of us not to be better prepared for this situation. But the same argument some have made about the short-sightedness of the american electorate also applies to the european ones. Could european voters have been sold on military spending during a time of peace, when that spending could have gone to projects they thought more urgent? Would that have been a wise political move?
How is it hypocritical for today's voters not to care about the commitments of the votes from two generations ago?
Perhaps they needed a reminder that other democracies have a nasty habit of changing their minds at the worst times.
Long term planning can definitely be a weakness in democracies where politicians rotate after serving a short term (or need to "buy" votes to hold on to their positions).
Sure, but that's democracy for you. Voters have no appetite for long term geopolitics. Humans are highly local creatures in the end. The price of tomatoes going up by $0.5/pound is more impactful to American voters than a hundred Ukrainian children who were shelled to death.
Long term foreign policy always has to be sold to voters by politicians. And sometimes they fail to sell it. It happens. You can't rely on it.
I agree with your general position that trusting American voters is not a reliable foreign policy strategy but I'm not sure why you don't think Europe has also realized this. You can't make these kinds of adjustments very quickly, but if you look at defence spending in Europe since 2016, it's up pretty consistently across the board and looks to continue to trend that way: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2022&locations=DE-FR-NL-BE-NO-SE-FI-PL-EE-LT-LV-ES-IT-CZ&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=2016
The problem at the moment doesn't seem to be money, it's specific weapons and ammunition. Europe is giving Ukraine just about everything that isn't required for the bare minimum to defend themselves. Germany is giving most of their air defence, many air forces are giving F16's and Gripens and they're so desperate for artillery shells that they're starting a fund to collectively buy it from abroad.
At the moment they've reached the limit of their existing stockpiles and production capacity. Areas where they can scale up production is in modifying old weapons with cheap technology like drones and glide bombs, but this takes time and innovation.
This war has definitely woken Europe's sleepy MIC and they've had to make a lot of strides to expand production capacity. When the war started Europe could make about 20,000 shells per month, by next year it will be approaching 200,000.
What's really lacking is air defense capacity but that's slowly changing as well: https://www.army-technology.com/news/norway-boosts-air-defence-capacity-with-investment-in-nasams-production/
Ultimately I think if the US can get a final big aid package together before the election begins in full Europe will be able to keep Ukraine in the fight indefinitely within a year or so, but it remains to be seen if they can get there.
Edit: wrong link
I should have made your point explicitly, as your point is the more pressing issue. Europe can't provide what it doesn't have. I only meant to explain why it's reasonable that Europe would lack armaments compared to the US.
This actually hasn't been true for a while, at least in committed funds, although it's going to take another year or so at the current pace before EU military aid can actually replace US aid and even still there will be capability gaps. But EU military aid in dollars is almost on par with US aid now and when you include financial aid it dwarfs US aid.
This is decent overview although it takes a while for the graphs to load on my PC (scroll down): https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
I remember on reddit a few months into the whole thing Europeans on the Ukraine sub were telling everyone to not post raw $ amounts sent in aid and to express it as a % of GDP because the US was always above everyone else when you did it by raw $ amount.
Western Europe, in my eyes at least, both wants the US to foot the war bill but also look like they're the ones doing the most (without actually doing the most).
But measuring it on a per capita basis is the only thing that does make sense when comparing small and large counties. Estonia can really care, but can only contribute small amounts in absolute terms.
I’m not saying that Europe are doing enough me shouldn’t do more, but dont knock per capita comparisons.
It would however be completely fair to compare Europe as a whole versus USA- GDPs are very similar, populations more so (Europe has an advantage here).
Except per capita doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Estonia contributes 100% of its GDP, it still isn't doing as much as a larger country. Estonia not being physically able to support more isn't important.
What matters is equipment and weaponry on the ground in Ukraine, and yes the US provided more. The only reason people want to use % of GDP is to try and "level the playing field" in who provided the most aid. Except it isn't a competition, it's a fight for people's lives and their homes. I don't care if doing it as a % of GDP makes Estonia feel better about themselves because I don't care about how Estonia feels about themselves, I care about Ukraine having the equipment needed to defend themselves.
Europe* has actually surpassed the US in 'committed' military aid dollars. If the US doesn't pass more aid, they will pass the US in total military aid delivered to Ukraine this year.
https://app.23degrees.io/view/KJpesgWQv1CmxoMr-bar-stacked-horizontal-figure-5_scv
*If you include the UK
Adding all of Europe together to surpass the US has the exact same feeling as using % of GDP to surpass the US.
Why is that? I find your position pretty nonsensical to be honest.
Also, I didn't actually add all of Europe, just the top contributors:
Top European contributors total: 50€B in committed military aid, 233 million people.
US total: 42.2€B in committed military aid, 333 million people.
I don't really know what you expect then, turning into a bit of a cyclical argument here.
You're arguing that Europe isn't doing enough compared to the US, however in pure monetary and hardware terms its impossible for any country to compare to the US. However, if you look at per capita figures, a lot of European countries are contributing close to or more than the US but you say this comparison isn't fair. So to make it fair a poster compares some of the biggest contributors in Europe against the US and suddenly that's not a fair comparison so the goalposts move again.
Then suddenly it's that comparisons aren't the point and it suddenly becomes a call to emotion talking about how you just want more weapons and hardware on the ground in Ukraine.
We all want that to be fair, I won't argue with you there, but weapons, ammo and shells don't just magically appear. Europe's defence industries have been lazy, granted, but by next year there'll be a tenfold increase in the number of shells that can be made monthly and defence spending has been increasing massively across Europe for the past 7 or 8 years, never mind the past two once Russia invaded.
You're also forgetting that Europe isn't a hive mind. Within my own country, the UK has been training and arming Ukrainian soldiers since 2014, MI6 was right there with the US warning that Russia was going to invade in 2022 from the get go and has almost definitely been offering classified intelligence to Ukraine since then, and our special forces like the SAS, SBS, and probably even E Squadron have possibly been in Ukraine for some time offering support if reports are to be believed.
If you don’t want to use per capital then just compare Europe to USA, or individuals states of the USA to countries in Europe.
Per capita is useful because choosing how granular to measure changes the outcome of your analysis.
I guess what’s the question here? Who should up their game and contribute more? Well then it absolutely matters in per capita or per GDP or some other proportional comparator.
Another conclusion is: as Estonia I can’t hope to compare to the USA, so why bother trying at all? same for Portugal, Sweden, Poland, spain, France, Germany etc. Or… measure then as a group and suddenly each tiny contribution matters in combination.
From your original comment of:
“ Western Europe, in my eyes at least, both wants the US to foot the war bill but also look like they're the ones doing the most (without actually doing the most).”
looking here for a source (but happy to use others it seems Europe is neck and neck with USA for contributions.
Compare like for like is all I’m saying.
If you only care about Ukraine having the equipment to defend itself then what really matters in this case is having the weapons and ammunition to hold out long enough for industrial capacity to increase to the amount required for that defence. This isn't a request for unlimited support into the indefinite future, it's a request to bridge the gap until Europe has that capacity. This is Europe's hour of need, and it's not simply money that is needed.
I’m sure Russia will surrender when Montenegro allocates 100% of their GDP to supporting Ukraine.
To be completely fair, if I'm not mistaken, you were once on here questioning whether to keep your American citizenship - a country you never lived in and felt you had absolutely no connection to. It's an interesting position for one to argue from an EU perspective but as the citizen of a country which they have all but formally completely disavowed.
As an American who grew up in the States and has now lived in Europe for many years, I find this particular form of European doublethink especially irksome. Europeans tend to portray themselves of victims of US. I've encountered the narrative more than once about American culture "infecting" or "invading" European lands as if it was something inflicted upon them by a malevolent US and not because the citizens of those countries were freely choosing that culture - even when at a detriment to their own native one.
Similarly Europe is often portrayed as a victim of American meddling and, as put above, a "hostage" to US interests. It is certainly true that the US meddles in European affairs but dishonest to portray the EU as a hostage when the truth is that this is a policy expressly desired by Europe. European nations have enjoyed luxurious social welfare programs largely because of their reliance on the US for defense and geopolitical leadership. The EU talks a big game about wanting to stand on their own two feet but meanwhile is expanding the presence of the American military, especially in the North and East.
I am myself personally a non-interventionist and believe the US would be better off without meddling in world affairs but after many years of reflection on the subject and first hand experience living on four continents, I have begrudgingly come to admit that the world would suffer for the US to return to non-interventionism. Modern Europe would be unrecognizable without US support, again their lavish public spending and routine economic underperformance would be unsustainable if they had to support a military capable of defending the continent. Then there is the fact that in spite of America's "instigating wars all around the world," to borrow those words, Pax Americana is the most peaceful time in the entire recorded history of the world. Don't mistake me for a nationalist trying to glorify a country that I haven't lived in for over a decade and feel a more tenuous connection to by the day, I am a realist who understands that in the face of an entirely apathetic Europe a decision to align with a global military power has to be made and when choosing among the US, Russia, or China the US begins to not look so malevolent at all.
And, without digressing to far or too long from the extremely complicated relationship between the US and Europe, we should not forget that Europe too continues to practice colonialism to this very day - particularly in Africa, the Middle East, and, to a lesser extent, South America but because they can hide in the US' shadow gets to escape the critical focus that they also deserve.
I don't disagree, but how could that be fixed?
Not exactly important, but I think you're underestimating the size of Ukraine here a bit, heh. Half a day's train ride is still eastern Europe, and we've been trying to help, but we don't have the cash. By percentage of GDP our contributions have been acceptable imo, and I'm quite proud of our recent actions, namely finding a source of over 1 mil pieces of artillery ammunition and acting as a middleman in their purchase.
It is absolutely true that at least some countries in western Europe do not seem to understand the gravity of the situation at all though.
These seem like beliefs of the public based on dubious evidence, not beliefs of analysts or people in charge. The effect of sanctions was weaker than hoped, but it's still important. Russians rising up against Putin was naive nonsense from the beginning (plus the alternatives to Putin are hardly better) and while people believed and believe that Ukraine may reclaim its territory, at no point was it considered a highly probable option.
Now I don't mean to be too high on hopium here, but both revolutions and collapses of war economies seem impossible until they happen, then they appear inevitable. I don't think hope of a regime change in Russia in 2022 was unfounded, it just didn't happen. And the fact that it seems like it wasn't even close doesn't (IMO) mean anything: History is full of "successful"* revolutions, it's full of "nahh, that's never going to amount to a revolution", but there's precious few situations where it looked genuinely close. Which IMO means that there must've been close calls that we can't readily identify as such. Mostly because a revolution's fate is kinda mostly decided before it's even really visible. A coup that doesn't capture the presidential palace isn't much of a coup, a popular revolution that doesn't mobilize millions in protests isn't much of a popular revolution.
As for the war economy, I'm not saying Russia's is close to collapse, though certainly closer than it was in 2022-01-01. But that it trucks along as if nothing happened is to do with massive government intervention to force it to do so. If that government loses its leverage, my guess is the Russian economy will be gone in no time flat.
* successful refering to achieving regime change, not necessarily improving the overall situation
That may be true but don't forget about PPP - Russia has a lot more capacity and capability than Italy does. You can probably get 2 or 3 Russian APC's (for example) whereas in Italy you could only get 1.
Webarchive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240415175434/https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-04-12/could-ukraine-lose-war-to-russia-in-kyiv-defeat-feels-unthinkable-even-as-victory-gets-harder-to-picture