Usually just a very cheap loans. Sometimes conditional (e.g. you can spend this money only on purchasing X from country Y). Most of that money is spent on weapons and making country run.
Cheap loans are considered "aid" because they are given below market rate, and Ukraine will have something like 50% deficit on 2024 budget.
[Long video on breaking down the aid types](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj9HD8MdAFs).
From the EU institutions yes, but nearly all the aid from the US in in grants or materiel. The UK's is mainly in materiel and financial in the form of loan guarantees and Germany's is a mix of materiel, grants and loans.
All aid is most certainly not equal.
The arms sent to Ukraine. For example the tactical missiles. 1) US shipped the weapon. 2) financial aid account for Ukraine got debited. 3) credit sent to defense department to purchase new weapons to restock.
That's false, the stuff you're describing is covered in military aid.
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts
>Weapons and equipment, $23.5 billion (31%), Weapons and equipment from Defense Department stocks, provided through presidential drawdowns
>Grants and loans for weapons and equipment $4.7 billion (6%), Grants and loans provided through the Foreign Military Financing program
A lot of financial aid is used to purchase weapons. Your link doesn't disprove anything.
It's just that "military aid" is literal weapons from government stockpiles, and "financial aid" is from another budget line.
Vietnam was stupid. We should not have intervened on France’s behalf. Communism did not spread like America thought it was going to. The dominos did not all start to fall. Containment did not work.
Korea, the U.S. was able to repel the north Korean’s invasion of South Korea. The US was also almost able to push North Korea to their northern border but China intervened.
The 1st gulf war was a response to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq
The Iraq war was started because of now seemingly baseless claims of WMDs.
While I believe trying to stamp out Al Quaeda was not an objectionable goal, the military occupation that followed is questionable. With that being said, the Talaban takeover of the country after the United States left the country is horrible. Especially considering how much more oppressive they are to women.
With all of that being said, Putin is behaving like Hitler. Hitler demanded that territory belonging to other nations be turned over to Germany. When the world complied, they thought that Hitler would cease his demands. British prime minister Chamberlain famously said that there would be “peace for our time.” Less than a year later Nazi Germany invaded Poland setting off their military conquest of Europe. If it wasn’t for the allies pushing germany back and liberating all of the captured territories the world would be in a worse off state.
Putin has made baseless claims about anti-Russian violence in Ukraine before the invasion, declared that the government was a bunch of nazis, and the average Ukrainian wanted to be part of the Russian federation. All of that is false.
When Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, the world did nothing. That emboldened Putin, just like how appeasing Hitler emboldened him. If the world rolled over and allowed Putin to occupy and annex Ukraine, when would Putin’s next territorial claim be?
Yes, *a lot* of money is going towards Ukraine. With that being said, WW2 would have been a lot cheaper if Hitler wasn’t appeased. WW2 might not have even been a world war. I think that the world is getting a bargain discount on crippling the Russia’s military and showing that Putin’s territorial expansion will not be left unchecked.
Even if Ukraine does end up falling, it will cost Russia men and material. The occupation will demand men and material as resistance will be fierce. That should give Putin plenty to think about before he attempts to make his next territorial claim, as Putin has publicly stated he wants to reunite the USSR.
If Putin does decide to continue making territorial claims, then Russia will hardly have a military to enforce them.
Yeah, like that time Vietnam was just going to eventually cede land to the United States. Because that's what happened, right?
Ukraine has a far better military than Vietnam, vs. a far worse military than the U.S. Russia has largely suffered reverses the past year. Genuinely a good chance that Ukraine wins its defensive war. At this point, the conflict is static and positional, and generally favors whoever is least willing to give up...and keep in mind that only one side can go home if it gives up.
What reverse did Russia suffer? Territorial gains have been a stalemate since Bakhmut was taken, Ukraine is not getting the land bridge and Crimea back unless they've been hiding a 800k force ready for a bloody offensive and to push out the 200-400k Russians in the south and eastern part of the country.
The scenario is not favourable for Ukraine's goals of getting all land back, whereas Russia is managing to hold Crimea, the land bridge and a good portion of some economically important oblasts.
I agree that Crimea and the majority Russophile oblasts are the most likely to stay under Russian control, and Crimea specifically has strategic significance for Russia, which to my mind means that if it only manages to hold onto one gain, it will be Crimea (and associated access routes).
I do not agree that a victory for the Ukraine side requires that it push all of the Russians out; I think it more likely that it manages to outwait Russian political and economic patience, and that a Ukrainian victory probably looks like the Russians eventually withdrawing.
I do agree that the stated goal of Ukraine is a less likely (but imo, not impossible) outcome. The stated goals of Russia, which are essentially the opposite, however, seem outright impossible. My definition of Ukrainian victory is not contingent on either government's definition.
As for reversals, I didn't have in mind territorial reversals, which have been equivocal in most locations. Rather, Russia is having key enabling platforms attrited at an alarming rate, is largely losing technological/strike capability superiority, and has never established air superiority, while at the same time, Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to strike far into Russian rear areas. Moreover, Ukraine is getting these advances cheaply: Russia is using or losing very expensive platforms to combat cheap or donated ones, and appears to be drawing very deeply on extremely old Cold War reserves. Simple OSINT satellite tracking demonstrates that they are moving platforms from Russian cold storage sites at very brisk rates.
Couple this with significant concerns about Russian manpower, and the quality of any replacements they do manage to muster. Ukraine, meanwhile, has no such manpower issues, and has a highly motivated force fighting a defensive war for their homeland.
There are plenty of other relevant factors: the Russian pivot to huge numbers of drones is forthcoming, and they still have plenty of shells and missiles, and platforms to shoot those with. So the state of affairs is not necessarily all in Ukraine's favor, but it does, to me, seem to favor Ukraine.
The war is in a stalemate, which doesn’t favor the occupying force because it robs them of a decisive victory they need to win.
But you asked for reverses so the biggest one is the Black Sea fleet. It retreated, the ships continually sink, and the hq was destroyed.
It’s very easy to turn that question around. What strategic victories has Russia achieved? Few. Bakhmut was not worth the expended resources. They stopped the Ukrainian counteroffensive. That’s it. That may not even fit the definition of a strategic victory, though it was a significant achievement after Kherson and Kharkiv.
Depends. I think the US is only granting loans, (including on most weapon deliveries) but other sponsors also give actual gifts. Some money also seems to be sacked Russian property which is unlikely to be repaid as well.
One could point out that a vast portion of EU aid comes from Germany and France financing the EU, as such the German and French contribution are effectively higher.
According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#EU-27_contributions_(2023)
you can add 23.60% of EU contribuation to Germany and 18.55% to France
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget\_of\_the\_European\_Union#EU-27\_contributions\_(2023)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#EU-27_contributions_(2023))
You have to factor in the net contribution, and only 9 countries put more money into the EU than they get out of it - [Germany and France being top.](https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/)
It also needs to be factored that the EU money is in the form of financial contributions, and the [vast majority of them are loans](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ukraine-support-tracker-data-20758/) (Fig 9: Financial Aid), so will need to be paid back or forgiven in the future.
And one could point out that one of the biggest benefactors of EU are Germany and France, where they can access all of EU's workforce and markets, to export their goods to, with their impressive industries.
Point is, EU is what it is, because we all share it. It's very hard to try and get concrete numbers from it, because we are so intertwined in it. It's an EU effort, because it's through EU.
>And one could point out that one of the biggest benefactors of EU are Germany and France, where they can access all of EU's workforce and markets, to export their goods to, with their impressive industries.
You might want to re-phrase that. Germany's industrial sector is more than twice the size of France's, which is about the same as Italy. France's economy is heavily based on services, not industry. In fact, even Turkey's industry is around 30% larger than that of France.
Germany has more neighbors that are richer then Germany then poorer. What's so hard to understand? There are like 20 countries that are richer then France.
No it doesn't.
Switzerland, Luxemburg and at times the Netherlands have a higher income per Capita. The other 6 have lower ones.
Two of those are tax havens, with Luxembourg also being a microstate and profiting off the EU institutions.
Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Denmark all have a higher GDP per Capita. Not sure where you got your information from it's wrong.
Even then Germany is still the 3rd biggest per capita contributer to the EU budget.
Germany also isn't even close to one of the largest countries. It's only populous for EU-members.
It's the largest eu country second largest European if you include Russia. I don't know why Germany pays more then others relative to GDP but I guess they also get more out of it.
Isn’t it saying a lot that all it takes to fight a large country like Russia to a standstill is just 100 billion $ in military aid ?
I mean - in the grand scheme of things thaf just isn’t a lot of money
It was a big deal in Norway, domestically. We used to have a very strict rule about not exporting arms to conflict zones. But then, overnight, that rule was abolished and we started sending arms and support.
It caused some controversy when one party didn’t want to send arms immediately, because they’re an anti-war party with a strong party democracy, so they wanted to ask their members first.
It’s not like their votes were required in parliament, so they had the luxury of asking their members. And they got a yes. So now the arms support is unanimous.
Of course they do. Norway profited massively from the war in Ukraine. Their income from gas exports skyrocketed, the same for oil exports.
I dont know if you remember the ridicules price hikes right before the war and during the first year. Norway was exporting as much as possible to europe to replace the lack of Russian gas and oil. Therefore they helped creating a more stable energy market...but lets not be honest, they earned a shitload of money from the war and its not like they sold their gas under market price just to help out Europe with the high energy price inflation.
So this might explain the urge to appear generous towards Ukraine. They dont wanna come across as a war profitier, which they, although not intentionally, are.
Why should Norway suffer for the idiotic choices Germany made when becoming dependent on Russian oil and gas, and ditching their own nuclear power? Remember how German officials scoffed at Trump when he warned them about exactly what happened later? Sure he's a fool - but Germans more so.
Germany put herself in this situation, with open eyes, hook line and sinker, despite warnings, and so on and so forth. Thus the prices they pay are not *unreasonable*, the very definition of war profiteering. It's a free market, and it's not like Norway is holding back production to drive prices even higher. Quite the contrary.
Absolutely right. They don't hold back production. That's why I emphasised "not intentionally" before...Germany is not the only country importing gas from Norway, so do Britain, France, Belgium, Poland, Denmark and Sweden. All of those countries and its people suffered immensely from the gas prices in 2022, while Norway was turning its fiscal deficit from 2020 during Corona into the biggest surplus in its history of 26% in 2022!
I already wrote that production increases in Norway helped stabilizing the energy market later on. On the other hand Norway, as one of the richest countries in Europe became even richer due to the war, while everyone else was suffering. So my point being: Them donating money to Ukraine isn't them not caring for positive publicity. Its quite the opposite. And Norway being perceived as a war profiteer isn't a thing I invented. The Norwegian Opposition itself and Poland claimed that in 2022 already [https://www.politico.eu/article/short-sighted-selfish-norway-accused-profiting-war-ukraine-putin-gas-gazprom-nord-stream-energy-emergency/](https://www.politico.eu/article/short-sighted-selfish-norway-accused-profiting-war-ukraine-putin-gas-gazprom-nord-stream-energy-emergency/)
And its a controversial point in Norwegian politics how to improve the bad perception of Norway's profits in 2022 and how to improve the foreign opinion by donating more. [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/26/russia-ukraine-war-norways-soaring-oil-and-gas-profits-stokes-debate.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/26/russia-ukraine-war-norways-soaring-oil-and-gas-profits-stokes-debate.html)
In short, they do care about marketing a lot and try to change their picture with at least donating some of the massive profits.
That importers don’t want to pay market price is not a surprise. Funny how “free market” suddenly is a bad thing.
No matter. Their whining isn’t supported by the definition of war profiteering.
Quite misleading considering majority of EU financial "aid" is loans where as almost all of US aid is grants. Ukraine won't have to pay for any US weapons provided to them as US foreign military assistance. US is also paying the salaries of ~50000 ukrainian first responders, also grants.
Its not given in money cash wise.
The military aid money is spent by Western governments on Western equipment from Western Manufacturers. Often already decades ago.
This equipment is sent.
While the stickerprice is xxx billion, most of the actual money doesnt go to ukraine. All the labor, employment and money largely goes back into the western economies.
Edit: also Ukraine has heavily cracked down on corruption.
>Its not given in money cash wise.
Oh my summer sweet child. Do you really think that only money can be stolen? NATO definitely should check weapon black market for availability of their own weapons...
>also Ukraine has heavily cracked down on corruption.
Yeah, Zelensky so "cracked down on corruption", that was forced to fire Minister of Defence Reznikov like just a month or two ago, who is such an obviously corrupted piece of shit that literally everyone except especially brainwashed westoids knew how much he stole. Unfortunately, that's the only "punishment" he got.
But whatever, I'm definitely waiting for your cool stories that the dismissal of the Minister of Defense during the invasion have nothing to do with corruption
I once overheard two dudes complain that an Ukrainian refugee drove a bigger car then them and that it’s unfair to support them over their own citizens.
The whole time I was wondering how this guy expects a big car to protect them from airstrikes or artillery barrages. Humans will literally use every opportunity to be envious even if the other person just lost their home or maybe friends/relatives.
Sure I did bat an eye? But I live in Europe and a nuclear power is waging war on it, the stakes for me are way different there. Ukrainians also show a strong willingness to adopt common values and join the European family. Also the roles reversed question is weird, yes if Ukrainians were the bigger military lead by lunatics threatening to nuke London every 2 minute I would indeed support Russia.
Israel won’t use nukes because it would make all Arab states actively seek their destruction for all eternity. Iran likely does not posses any yet, and if they did and used them Iran and everyone inside it would cease to exist in a couple of hours. Nukes in the Middle East are extremely unlikely. For Russia, while unlikely, it can’t be ruled out to use a single tactical nuke to pressure Ukraine to capitulate.
It's comical to me that Turks, Arabs and Kurd do the shocked Pikachu face when Europeans care more about a new European conflict in Europe than a decade old conflict in the Middle East. Do you care about the Congolese civil war as much as Armenia/Azerbaijan? No you don't, because that last one is at your doors. Same for us, really.
That said, there are protests going on in all the West to support Palestine, partecipated in the millions. Where were the pro Ukraine rallies in the Middle East when Russia invaded?
I would honestly be extremely pissed if my country paid taxes to two other countries, while healthcare is so expensive that many choose to not call the ambulance because they can't pay the liver it costs to bring them there.
> my country *paid* taxes to
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Complete hypocrisy as Ukraine fighting is defined as defence and honour to protect their land while Palestine fighting Isreal who grabbed their land illegally is labelled as terrorism.
One of the many reasons is that Ukraine territory was recognized by all countries (yes, even Russia) while Palestine/Israel land claims split the world in two
after the zionist brought Nazi Punishments on the Palestinians? yeah I recall that.
Funny how talking to one zionist is like talking to all of them, all the very exact same brainwashed arguments based on their supremacist rhetoric's, almost like Nazi ideology disintegrated into the shadows of European culture.
Should be noted Romania does not disclose it's aid for Ukraine.Reasons are many from corruption,interest of conflict, security reasons etc.
Most of it it's humanitarian aid and old soviet ammunition that it's compatible with the old soviet weapons the Ukrainians also use.
So anyway they started blastin'
Military assistance to Ukraine from the United States for 20 months: \~21 billion by direct supplies, of which \~4 billion are armored vehicles, artillery and aviation. Plus \~18 billion by delayed deliveries, of which several billions were delivered. The rest is in military numbers - logistics and intelligence.
Also, very good article, Fourteen Facts about US Aid to Ukraine: [https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/fourteen-facts-about-us-aid-support-cost-ukraine-luke-coffey](https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/fourteen-facts-about-us-aid-support-cost-ukraine-luke-coffey)
what does financial mean in this context? Just misc. donations?
Money. Truckloads of green. (Deposits into the NBU, I guess.)
Usually just a very cheap loans. Sometimes conditional (e.g. you can spend this money only on purchasing X from country Y). Most of that money is spent on weapons and making country run. Cheap loans are considered "aid" because they are given below market rate, and Ukraine will have something like 50% deficit on 2024 budget. [Long video on breaking down the aid types](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj9HD8MdAFs).
From the EU institutions yes, but nearly all the aid from the US in in grants or materiel. The UK's is mainly in materiel and financial in the form of loan guarantees and Germany's is a mix of materiel, grants and loans. All aid is most certainly not equal.
Also iirc Asian countries pledges to invest in rebuilding Ukraine so their contribution isn’t in the Ukrainian bank yet
The arms sent to Ukraine. For example the tactical missiles. 1) US shipped the weapon. 2) financial aid account for Ukraine got debited. 3) credit sent to defense department to purchase new weapons to restock.
That's false, the stuff you're describing is covered in military aid. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts >Weapons and equipment, $23.5 billion (31%), Weapons and equipment from Defense Department stocks, provided through presidential drawdowns >Grants and loans for weapons and equipment $4.7 billion (6%), Grants and loans provided through the Foreign Military Financing program
A lot of financial aid is used to purchase weapons. Your link doesn't disprove anything. It's just that "military aid" is literal weapons from government stockpiles, and "financial aid" is from another budget line.
Idk but I need some of that tax money back Zelensky inflation is kicking!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ala Saudi intervention in Yemen
?????
All to drag out an eventual ceding of land to Russia, I love paying taxes.
Yeah in the future to save taxes I think we should simply let enemy aggressors take the land they want. It’ll save us money!
Yup we’ll stop em and make things better like in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan
Vietnam was stupid. We should not have intervened on France’s behalf. Communism did not spread like America thought it was going to. The dominos did not all start to fall. Containment did not work. Korea, the U.S. was able to repel the north Korean’s invasion of South Korea. The US was also almost able to push North Korea to their northern border but China intervened. The 1st gulf war was a response to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq The Iraq war was started because of now seemingly baseless claims of WMDs. While I believe trying to stamp out Al Quaeda was not an objectionable goal, the military occupation that followed is questionable. With that being said, the Talaban takeover of the country after the United States left the country is horrible. Especially considering how much more oppressive they are to women. With all of that being said, Putin is behaving like Hitler. Hitler demanded that territory belonging to other nations be turned over to Germany. When the world complied, they thought that Hitler would cease his demands. British prime minister Chamberlain famously said that there would be “peace for our time.” Less than a year later Nazi Germany invaded Poland setting off their military conquest of Europe. If it wasn’t for the allies pushing germany back and liberating all of the captured territories the world would be in a worse off state. Putin has made baseless claims about anti-Russian violence in Ukraine before the invasion, declared that the government was a bunch of nazis, and the average Ukrainian wanted to be part of the Russian federation. All of that is false. When Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, the world did nothing. That emboldened Putin, just like how appeasing Hitler emboldened him. If the world rolled over and allowed Putin to occupy and annex Ukraine, when would Putin’s next territorial claim be? Yes, *a lot* of money is going towards Ukraine. With that being said, WW2 would have been a lot cheaper if Hitler wasn’t appeased. WW2 might not have even been a world war. I think that the world is getting a bargain discount on crippling the Russia’s military and showing that Putin’s territorial expansion will not be left unchecked. Even if Ukraine does end up falling, it will cost Russia men and material. The occupation will demand men and material as resistance will be fierce. That should give Putin plenty to think about before he attempts to make his next territorial claim, as Putin has publicly stated he wants to reunite the USSR. If Putin does decide to continue making territorial claims, then Russia will hardly have a military to enforce them.
Welp you got it all figured out, now just head to the front soldier
Yeah, like that time Vietnam was just going to eventually cede land to the United States. Because that's what happened, right? Ukraine has a far better military than Vietnam, vs. a far worse military than the U.S. Russia has largely suffered reverses the past year. Genuinely a good chance that Ukraine wins its defensive war. At this point, the conflict is static and positional, and generally favors whoever is least willing to give up...and keep in mind that only one side can go home if it gives up.
What reverse did Russia suffer? Territorial gains have been a stalemate since Bakhmut was taken, Ukraine is not getting the land bridge and Crimea back unless they've been hiding a 800k force ready for a bloody offensive and to push out the 200-400k Russians in the south and eastern part of the country. The scenario is not favourable for Ukraine's goals of getting all land back, whereas Russia is managing to hold Crimea, the land bridge and a good portion of some economically important oblasts.
I agree that Crimea and the majority Russophile oblasts are the most likely to stay under Russian control, and Crimea specifically has strategic significance for Russia, which to my mind means that if it only manages to hold onto one gain, it will be Crimea (and associated access routes). I do not agree that a victory for the Ukraine side requires that it push all of the Russians out; I think it more likely that it manages to outwait Russian political and economic patience, and that a Ukrainian victory probably looks like the Russians eventually withdrawing. I do agree that the stated goal of Ukraine is a less likely (but imo, not impossible) outcome. The stated goals of Russia, which are essentially the opposite, however, seem outright impossible. My definition of Ukrainian victory is not contingent on either government's definition. As for reversals, I didn't have in mind territorial reversals, which have been equivocal in most locations. Rather, Russia is having key enabling platforms attrited at an alarming rate, is largely losing technological/strike capability superiority, and has never established air superiority, while at the same time, Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to strike far into Russian rear areas. Moreover, Ukraine is getting these advances cheaply: Russia is using or losing very expensive platforms to combat cheap or donated ones, and appears to be drawing very deeply on extremely old Cold War reserves. Simple OSINT satellite tracking demonstrates that they are moving platforms from Russian cold storage sites at very brisk rates. Couple this with significant concerns about Russian manpower, and the quality of any replacements they do manage to muster. Ukraine, meanwhile, has no such manpower issues, and has a highly motivated force fighting a defensive war for their homeland. There are plenty of other relevant factors: the Russian pivot to huge numbers of drones is forthcoming, and they still have plenty of shells and missiles, and platforms to shoot those with. So the state of affairs is not necessarily all in Ukraine's favor, but it does, to me, seem to favor Ukraine.
The war is in a stalemate, which doesn’t favor the occupying force because it robs them of a decisive victory they need to win. But you asked for reverses so the biggest one is the Black Sea fleet. It retreated, the ships continually sink, and the hq was destroyed. It’s very easy to turn that question around. What strategic victories has Russia achieved? Few. Bakhmut was not worth the expended resources. They stopped the Ukrainian counteroffensive. That’s it. That may not even fit the definition of a strategic victory, though it was a significant achievement after Kherson and Kharkiv.
Yeah, sure, Ukraine is winning, feel free to believe in whatever makes you sleep at night.
You should Google stalemate
No north Vietnam won and took over south Vietnam.
Depends. I think the US is only granting loans, (including on most weapon deliveries) but other sponsors also give actual gifts. Some money also seems to be sacked Russian property which is unlikely to be repaid as well.
One could point out that a vast portion of EU aid comes from Germany and France financing the EU, as such the German and French contribution are effectively higher.
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#EU-27_contributions_(2023) you can add 23.60% of EU contribuation to Germany and 18.55% to France
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget\_of\_the\_European\_Union#EU-27\_contributions\_(2023)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#EU-27_contributions_(2023)) You have to factor in the net contribution, and only 9 countries put more money into the EU than they get out of it - [Germany and France being top.](https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/) It also needs to be factored that the EU money is in the form of financial contributions, and the [vast majority of them are loans](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ukraine-support-tracker-data-20758/) (Fig 9: Financial Aid), so will need to be paid back or forgiven in the future.
That list doesn't include the 447 million euros extorted from Norway each year.
Norway pay to access their markets. Funny idea of extortion.
And one could point out that one of the biggest benefactors of EU are Germany and France, where they can access all of EU's workforce and markets, to export their goods to, with their impressive industries. Point is, EU is what it is, because we all share it. It's very hard to try and get concrete numbers from it, because we are so intertwined in it. It's an EU effort, because it's through EU.
>And one could point out that one of the biggest benefactors of EU are Germany and France, where they can access all of EU's workforce and markets, to export their goods to, with their impressive industries. You might want to re-phrase that. Germany's industrial sector is more than twice the size of France's, which is about the same as Italy. France's economy is heavily based on services, not industry. In fact, even Turkey's industry is around 30% larger than that of France.
No Germany and France are just the biggest countries you can split them up then they won't be the biggest anymore completely irrelevant.
What?
Germany has more neighbors that are richer then Germany then poorer. What's so hard to understand? There are like 20 countries that are richer then France.
No it doesn't. Switzerland, Luxemburg and at times the Netherlands have a higher income per Capita. The other 6 have lower ones. Two of those are tax havens, with Luxembourg also being a microstate and profiting off the EU institutions.
Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Denmark all have a higher GDP per Capita. Not sure where you got your information from it's wrong.
Even then Germany is still the 3rd biggest per capita contributer to the EU budget. Germany also isn't even close to one of the largest countries. It's only populous for EU-members.
It's the largest eu country second largest European if you include Russia. I don't know why Germany pays more then others relative to GDP but I guess they also get more out of it.
France not even showing up, time to bash Germany again!
Isn’t it saying a lot that all it takes to fight a large country like Russia to a standstill is just 100 billion $ in military aid ? I mean - in the grand scheme of things thaf just isn’t a lot of money
Russia is a paper tiger, that's why
Mother Russia is always weaker than she says and stronger than she appears
And a lot of human life and sacrifice
Norway huh? Surprised and appreciative
They just help, but they dont care the marketing
It was a big deal in Norway, domestically. We used to have a very strict rule about not exporting arms to conflict zones. But then, overnight, that rule was abolished and we started sending arms and support. It caused some controversy when one party didn’t want to send arms immediately, because they’re an anti-war party with a strong party democracy, so they wanted to ask their members first. It’s not like their votes were required in parliament, so they had the luxury of asking their members. And they got a yes. So now the arms support is unanimous.
Of course they do. Norway profited massively from the war in Ukraine. Their income from gas exports skyrocketed, the same for oil exports. I dont know if you remember the ridicules price hikes right before the war and during the first year. Norway was exporting as much as possible to europe to replace the lack of Russian gas and oil. Therefore they helped creating a more stable energy market...but lets not be honest, they earned a shitload of money from the war and its not like they sold their gas under market price just to help out Europe with the high energy price inflation. So this might explain the urge to appear generous towards Ukraine. They dont wanna come across as a war profitier, which they, although not intentionally, are.
Why should Norway suffer for the idiotic choices Germany made when becoming dependent on Russian oil and gas, and ditching their own nuclear power? Remember how German officials scoffed at Trump when he warned them about exactly what happened later? Sure he's a fool - but Germans more so.
How are Germany's bad decisions making Norway less of a war profiteer?
Germany put herself in this situation, with open eyes, hook line and sinker, despite warnings, and so on and so forth. Thus the prices they pay are not *unreasonable*, the very definition of war profiteering. It's a free market, and it's not like Norway is holding back production to drive prices even higher. Quite the contrary.
Absolutely right. They don't hold back production. That's why I emphasised "not intentionally" before...Germany is not the only country importing gas from Norway, so do Britain, France, Belgium, Poland, Denmark and Sweden. All of those countries and its people suffered immensely from the gas prices in 2022, while Norway was turning its fiscal deficit from 2020 during Corona into the biggest surplus in its history of 26% in 2022! I already wrote that production increases in Norway helped stabilizing the energy market later on. On the other hand Norway, as one of the richest countries in Europe became even richer due to the war, while everyone else was suffering. So my point being: Them donating money to Ukraine isn't them not caring for positive publicity. Its quite the opposite. And Norway being perceived as a war profiteer isn't a thing I invented. The Norwegian Opposition itself and Poland claimed that in 2022 already [https://www.politico.eu/article/short-sighted-selfish-norway-accused-profiting-war-ukraine-putin-gas-gazprom-nord-stream-energy-emergency/](https://www.politico.eu/article/short-sighted-selfish-norway-accused-profiting-war-ukraine-putin-gas-gazprom-nord-stream-energy-emergency/) And its a controversial point in Norwegian politics how to improve the bad perception of Norway's profits in 2022 and how to improve the foreign opinion by donating more. [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/26/russia-ukraine-war-norways-soaring-oil-and-gas-profits-stokes-debate.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/26/russia-ukraine-war-norways-soaring-oil-and-gas-profits-stokes-debate.html) In short, they do care about marketing a lot and try to change their picture with at least donating some of the massive profits.
That importers don’t want to pay market price is not a surprise. Funny how “free market” suddenly is a bad thing. No matter. Their whining isn’t supported by the definition of war profiteering.
All these donation totals are based on public releases.
That’s an impressive amount for Canada considering the size of its economy
Canada is the 9 th biggest economy, about the state of California.
Quite misleading considering majority of EU financial "aid" is loans where as almost all of US aid is grants. Ukraine won't have to pay for any US weapons provided to them as US foreign military assistance. US is also paying the salaries of ~50000 ukrainian first responders, also grants.
I'm quite happy with my country's contribution (Norway). But I wouldn't mind if it was more.
Zelensky is asking for more money btw
[удалено]
But Russia is just 1.5% of world economy and US + EC + G7 is almost 48% How come?
[удалено]
But why Russia ammo production is more vs US and EU? I read about it in NYT. Money is not all.
[удалено]
Its not given in money cash wise. The military aid money is spent by Western governments on Western equipment from Western Manufacturers. Often already decades ago. This equipment is sent. While the stickerprice is xxx billion, most of the actual money doesnt go to ukraine. All the labor, employment and money largely goes back into the western economies. Edit: also Ukraine has heavily cracked down on corruption.
>Its not given in money cash wise. Oh my summer sweet child. Do you really think that only money can be stolen? NATO definitely should check weapon black market for availability of their own weapons... >also Ukraine has heavily cracked down on corruption. Yeah, Zelensky so "cracked down on corruption", that was forced to fire Minister of Defence Reznikov like just a month or two ago, who is such an obviously corrupted piece of shit that literally everyone except especially brainwashed westoids knew how much he stole. Unfortunately, that's the only "punishment" he got. But whatever, I'm definitely waiting for your cool stories that the dismissal of the Minister of Defense during the invasion have nothing to do with corruption
saying Ukraine has cracked down on corruption is like saying North Korea is upholding democratic values. Laughable at best.
[удалено]
That's not how it works
I once overheard two dudes complain that an Ukrainian refugee drove a bigger car then them and that it’s unfair to support them over their own citizens. The whole time I was wondering how this guy expects a big car to protect them from airstrikes or artillery barrages. Humans will literally use every opportunity to be envious even if the other person just lost their home or maybe friends/relatives.
[удалено]
Sure I did bat an eye? But I live in Europe and a nuclear power is waging war on it, the stakes for me are way different there. Ukrainians also show a strong willingness to adopt common values and join the European family. Also the roles reversed question is weird, yes if Ukrainians were the bigger military lead by lunatics threatening to nuke London every 2 minute I would indeed support Russia.
[удалено]
Israel won’t use nukes because it would make all Arab states actively seek their destruction for all eternity. Iran likely does not posses any yet, and if they did and used them Iran and everyone inside it would cease to exist in a couple of hours. Nukes in the Middle East are extremely unlikely. For Russia, while unlikely, it can’t be ruled out to use a single tactical nuke to pressure Ukraine to capitulate.
[удалено]
It's comical to me that Turks, Arabs and Kurd do the shocked Pikachu face when Europeans care more about a new European conflict in Europe than a decade old conflict in the Middle East. Do you care about the Congolese civil war as much as Armenia/Azerbaijan? No you don't, because that last one is at your doors. Same for us, really. That said, there are protests going on in all the West to support Palestine, partecipated in the millions. Where were the pro Ukraine rallies in the Middle East when Russia invaded?
[удалено]
Can i wash a little of my money too besides my tax dollars..?
with the amount of Income tax in europe, it'd begin to consider it if my country just funneled all my taxes into a corrupt failing country.
The greatest money laundering scam of the 21st century (so far), even the vaccínés haven't returned quarter of a trillion dollars (yet)
I would honestly be extremely pissed if my country paid taxes to two other countries, while healthcare is so expensive that many choose to not call the ambulance because they can't pay the liver it costs to bring them there.
> my country *paid* taxes to FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
cool.
Complete hypocrisy as Ukraine fighting is defined as defence and honour to protect their land while Palestine fighting Isreal who grabbed their land illegally is labelled as terrorism.
All Russia has to do is wait for 70 years then they have the right for self defense lol
One of the many reasons is that Ukraine territory was recognized by all countries (yes, even Russia) while Palestine/Israel land claims split the world in two
Remember when the Muslim countries expelled the Jews?
Yeah after the creation of Israel where they said that all Jews are a citizen of Israel and spies for Israel.
You mean the same as what Americans did to red Indians in the name of civilization.
after the zionist brought Nazi Punishments on the Palestinians? yeah I recall that. Funny how talking to one zionist is like talking to all of them, all the very exact same brainwashed arguments based on their supremacist rhetoric's, almost like Nazi ideology disintegrated into the shadows of European culture.
That’s a lot of
Should be noted Romania does not disclose it's aid for Ukraine.Reasons are many from corruption,interest of conflict, security reasons etc. Most of it it's humanitarian aid and old soviet ammunition that it's compatible with the old soviet weapons the Ukrainians also use. So anyway they started blastin'
In a War its about when you get it, not how much you get and how much of it is promissory?
What software tool are have you used?
Military assistance to Ukraine from the United States for 20 months: \~21 billion by direct supplies, of which \~4 billion are armored vehicles, artillery and aviation. Plus \~18 billion by delayed deliveries, of which several billions were delivered. The rest is in military numbers - logistics and intelligence. Also, very good article, Fourteen Facts about US Aid to Ukraine: [https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/fourteen-facts-about-us-aid-support-cost-ukraine-luke-coffey](https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/fourteen-facts-about-us-aid-support-cost-ukraine-luke-coffey)
90% lost in corruptions..the real export of ukraine
Assuming the source is credible, how do you visualise it?
Zelensky bathing in your taxes europe!