- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Summary
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Ukraine would lose the war if the U.S., its primary military supporter, cuts funding.
Speaking to Fox News, he stressed the importance of unity between the U.S. and Ukraine as Russia accelerates its territorial gains.
Zelensky acknowledged Ukraine’s challenges on the battlefield, despite new U.S. weapon supplies, including long-range missiles and anti-personnel land mines.
He criticized German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for engaging with Putin, calling it a risky move.
Trump has pledged to end the war quickly but offered no specifics.
The collective West hasn’t been stopping Putin, that’s the point. Ukraine has been with primarily American support. It needs to be collective and it isn’t up to this point.
It is though, UK, Germany, Norway, etc are all also giving supplies and other support.
US is just so big that our support our lack thereof is very difficult to compensate for.
They’re not doing nothing but they’re not pulling their weight either. If they were then Zelensky’s statement here would not be necessary.
Yes they are. Check the % of GDP. We’re pulling our weight, pretty much as much as we can. More really considering we mostly don’t prioritise defence as much as the US does.
Yes, you’re putting in what you thought was sufficient while the US was carrying the largest burden. That’s not going to continue much longer so you can either change your perspective and increase your contributions or you can let Ukraine fall.
Trump is going to cut funding to Ukraine, that much is certain. What happens after that depends on Europe’s response.
Did you check this link?
https://protectukrainenow.org/en/report
The problem with your statement: it’s too simple and thus simply false. The sum of support from other allies considerably exceeds US support. The US is the biggest among donors however, and that is a great amount of support.
People often tend to oversimplify the picture. People also tend to memorize the state of affairs at some moment, and assume too long that the same snapshot still applies. The US fell behind when Biden’s bill spent months being stuck in Congress (and lots of it is spent domestically anyway - to replace the supplies being sent to Ukraine - sometimes with newer articles, e.g. ATACMS with PrSM). The US also seems to have something at hand which prevents sending any fixed-wing combat aircraft (my guess: state secrets). After some trying, the sides seem to have agreed that US tanks aren’t appropriate for Ukraine, so they sent only a handful and stopped. However, again after some trying, US infantry fighting vehicles are highly sought after, and they’ve been sending a lot. For some reason, the US is unable to send appreciable amounts of self-propelled artillery guns. But it more than made up by sending towed guns and ammo for guns.
Meanwhile, some European countries which were surprised and unprepared at first (e.g. Germany) have become high-ranking donors in the table, because they got their industry started eventually. Going by percentages of GDP however, one can observe that the biggest contributions relative to their own weight are from countries closer to Russia - other invasion candidates are contributing very seriously.
Also don’t forget the lion’s share of US money spent… is old material given to Ukraine and the monetary value given to the US military which spends it on new stuff… built in the US, employing American workers, who pay taxes… feeding the machine, making american companies richer while cementing Ukraine as a future cliënt of materials and parts. And saving some money on storage and decommissioning.
The bulk of Europese money goes to Ukraine to keep their state going, paying for their soldiers/teachers/civil servants salaries etc.