| ▲ | demek2016 18 hours ago |
| It is my one sincere wish in life that the suffering of Ukrainians is not for naught and that the people of Europe support you until victory. |
|
| ▲ | nickff 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| But Europe isn’t really supporting Ukraine, they’re just providing enough supplies to keep them in the fight. No state seems willing to provide enough assistance to allow for Ukrainian victory, because of the costs and risks associated with that aid. Even countries at little risk of reprisal from Russia are reluctant to do much at all. As such, all of us doing nothing more than “voicing support” on the internet and some far-away rally, should offer our empathy, and not presume to tell them how much we’re “helping”. |
| |
| ▲ | palata 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > But Europe isn’t really supporting Ukraine, they’re just providing enough supplies to keep them in the fight What is your definition of "supporting", if "providing support" doesn't count? | |
| ▲ | throwaway2037 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ukraine recieves 80B EUR in aid each year from various international partners. There is plenty of support. You can learn more from a German, independent, non-profit research institute (Kiel) here: https://www.kielinstitut.de/research/topics/war-against-ukra... | |
| ▲ | onemoresoop 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Europe is divided by propaganda and the situation is quite volatile at the moment. Some European countries do support Ukraine more than others.. | |
| ▲ | estearum 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of European countries (especially those closest to Russia) are doing a fuckton relative to their economies. The US is the despicable laggard, even when accounting for our distance from the action. (And especially when accounting for the fact we promised them our protection of their sovereignty) | | |
| ▲ | nradov 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | None of the European countries are doing much relative to their economies. Russia's GDP is about the same as Italy's. The rest of the EU and NATO countries together have an economy that is enormously larger than Russia's. So why do they allow Russia to push them around? | | |
| ▲ | estearum 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Here are the aid allocations to Ukraine as a share of GDP of the top contributors (all approximate from 2022 through to 2026): Denmark: 3% Estonia: 3% Lithuania: 2.5% Norway: 2.5% Latvia: 2% Sweden: 2% Finland: 1.5% ... UK [†]: 0.75% ... United States [†]: 0.5% [†]: These countries signed an agreement that they would protect Ukraine's sovereignty. For context, the US's entire national defense budget is about 3% of our GDP. Or alternatively, Medicare is 3% of our GDP. This statement is false: "None of the European countries are doing much relative to their economies." | | |
| ▲ | nradov 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ya, that's basically nothing. None of those European countries have asked their citizens to sacrifice. The welfare state continues uninterrupted. They were still buying Russian fossil fuels instead of telling people to put on a sweater. As a US citizen I think that our country should also do more to assist Ukraine. But fundamentally this is a European problem. They need to find a solution instead of expecting the US to bail them out again. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If 3% of GDP is basically nothing (US defense budget or Medicare), then why isn’t the expectation that the US puts in “basically nothing” (3%) as a token gesture towards its promise to guarantee their sovereignty? | | |
| ▲ | nradov 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Again, I think the US should do more but it's really not our problem. We never guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty. If you're referring to the Budapest Memorandum, it contains no such promise. | | |
| ▲ | estearum an hour ago | parent [-] | | The other states under the US nuclear umbrella find no comfort in the legalesing the difference between "a guarantee" and "an assurance." If we want nuclear proliferation, breaking our promises is the way to do it. The idea that a marauding steppe warlord succeeding in Ukraine and taking control of by far the most advanced and experienced near-peer military on the planet, with aspirations to advance further into Europe, is "not our problem" is laughable. | | |
| ▲ | nradov an hour ago | parent [-] | | Ukraine was never under the US nuclear umbrella. Where are you getting these crazy ideas? | | |
| ▲ | estearum an hour ago | parent [-] | | "Nuclear umbrella" is not a well-defined term. It is the set of promises the US made to non-nuclear states. It made a set of guarantees to some set of nations (e.g. NATO++), and a set of assurances to other states, like Ukraine. Our reneging on our assurances indicates weakness in our guarantees, which risks a proliferation spiral. For example, NATO's Article 5 can be legalesed the same exact way you're trying to legalese the Budapest Memorandum. Budapest Memorandum: > The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. NATO Article 5: > The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Both agreements promise assistance. Do you think the US's view that your position of "not our problem" qualifies as assistance under the Budapest memorandum, but that somehow "not our problem" would not qualify as assistance under Article 5? I'm curious for your opinion, though it doesn't matter much. The reality is that all of this is destroying the umbrella and its civilization-protecting purpose: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/19/nuclear-proliferation-defens... | | |
| ▲ | nradov 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What a weird non sequitur. Unlike the North Atlantic Treaty which established NATO, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 was explicitly not a mutual defense treaty (or even a treaty at all). It merely required the USA to bring violations to the UN Security Council, which we did in 2022. Promises made, promises kept. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Again, in a legalistic sense, sure. But again, in a legalistic sense, even NATO Article 5 also doesn't obligate the US to do anything. No document (Budapest memoranda or NATO treaty) can require the US to do anything, so all that matters is whether the US is signaling itself as a country that defends its partners. If you believe that Article 5 obligates the US to do anything more than what we've done so far in Ukraine, please explain why. If you don't believe that Article 5 does that, then I'm not sure why you seem dismissive of the idea that we're creating conditions for a nuclear proliferation spiral. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UpsideDownRide 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ukraine is provided with tech, weapons intelligence, and all kinds of equipment. You are spewing nonsense. | |
| ▲ | samplatt 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >No state seems willing to provide enough assistance to allow for Ukrainian victory Because Putin will never back down, by definition a Ukrainian "victory" would require the fall of Russia. Which would likely require a world war. |
|
|
| ▲ | Georgelemental 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | UpsideDownRide 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You seem to think that if Ukraine gives up all will be good. That Russia will play nice, try not to subjugate Ukraine fully Belarus style. As long as Ukraine wants to be free they don't have much choice since Russia is what it is. | |
| ▲ | hkpack 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How would you end the suffering? That is such a naive take, when there is no such option on the table. If Ukraine lose - russians will not only he able to bomb civilians from the distance, but will literally be able to go to their homes. The suffering will multiply but you will most likely not hear about it, so you will be in peace with yourself. | | |
| ▲ | Georgelemental 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Via a negotiated settlement, which would very likely include Ukraine giving up some amount of territory to Russia and making some guarantees about neutrality, and the West lifting sanctions, hopefully in exchange for Russia paying for Ukraine's reconstruction. Agree that it will be very hard to do though. Best time to try was years ago, but unfortunately Boris Johnson vetoed that, and now the Russians don't want to negotiate. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's such a naive comment. Any negotiated "settlement" that Russia would accept would leave Ukraine effectively defenseless and no longer a sovereign state. It would be only a temporary truce, which Russia would use to rebuild their military and then renew the invasion in a few years on some other artificial pretext. The only possible way to bring the conflict to a lasting peace is to kill enough Russians (including civilians) that they simply no longer have the capability to conduct war. That is the reality. | | |
| ▲ | Georgelemental 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | You base this assessment on what evidence? If Russia truly wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, they would have made their move in 2014, when the Ukrainian army was far weaker and the front far less fortified. Instead, they stopped at Crimea, and provided only limited support to the breakaway provinces in the Donbas. (To this day, many hardline Russian nationalists resent Putin for this! They think he was "too soft") Putin invaded in 2022 because he believed his hand had been forced. It wasn't, he was (and is) delusional and wrong, but there is every reason to think that he really believed it. | | |
| ▲ | __d 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You really should read Putin's 2021 essay on why Ukraine should be Russian https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Ru... | | |
| ▲ | Georgelemental 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have read that essay. It does not contradict anything I wrote above | | |
| ▲ | __d 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | You claimed that Russia invaded because its leader felt his hand was forced. You have offered no explanation of how it was "forced" to invade a sovereign neighbor. I contend that it chose to invade because its leader wants to integrate Ukraine into the Russian Federation, and offered this as evidence of that desire. I think that contradicts your statement as to the true rationale for the invasion. | | |
| ▲ | Georgelemental an hour ago | parent [-] | | That essay demonstrates that Putin believes that Ukraine is closely linked to Russian civilization. That doesn't mean he believes Ukraine should be part of the Russian Federation, just that it should have close ties to it. The essay very explicitly advocates for the latter, and blames the West/NATO/"Nazis" for driving a wedge between the two countries. (Of course, Putin's invasion has driven that wedge much further, and destroyed the relationship much more thoroughly, than the "Nazis" ever could. That's why I called him delusional) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | janfoeh 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is also every reason to believe Putin is doing this to restore Russia to former size, influence and glory. > Putin invaded in 2022 because he believed his hand had been forced. It wasn't, he was (and is) delusional and wrong, but there is every reason to think that he really believed it. Then please name those reasons. As for the "negotiated settlement" you've brought forward - one could be forgiven to think that such a settlement would not be worth the paper it is written on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum . | |
| ▲ | irlib 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | UpsideDownRide 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no such thing as neutrality. If Ukraine cannot align with west it will mean they will be forced to be under Russia. | |
| ▲ | el_jay 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Нet, товарищ. We do not reward wars of conquest by granting territorial gains to aggressors in Anno Domini 2026. | | |
| ▲ | Georgelemental 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | > We do not reward wars of conquest by granting territorial gains to aggressors > Switzerland and Hobart, TAS based Easy for you to say! You aren't the one dying. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Unlikely Truganini is in agreement here, she watched Tasmanian territory seized by aggressors and those gains writ into law. | |
| ▲ | el_jay 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Russia could end the war today by pulling out of the occupied territories and paying restitution. They aren’t doing that, and it seems the Ukrainians themselves still believe it is worth risking life and limb to keep them out. I don’t know where you’re from but I’d bet money it’s not your land the Russians would be occupying, товарищ. Lots of not so friendly countries are watching what goes on in Ukraine very carefully, and making decisions about their future military plans… | | |
| ▲ | Georgelemental 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > and it seems the Ukrainians themselves still believe it is worth risking life and limb to keep them out. Increasingly many do not feel that way! |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ninkendo 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Ukraine giving up some amount of territory to Russia and making some guarantees about neutrality So you’re saying the country that was invaded without any provocation, gives up territory for the pinky promise that Russia won’t do it again? You know this is already the second time in 10 years Putin has invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory, right? You do remember Crimea? Or we can go further back in history, look at the policy of appeasement with hitler in 1939. It doesn’t end well. You don’t negotiate with invaders. They’re not going to stop because you asked nicely. They’re going to keep taking until it’s all theirs. | |
| ▲ | estearum 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Someone hasn't listened to or read anything from Putin in the last 10 years and it shows. What an astoundingly ignorant comment. | |
| ▲ | dwoldrich 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Diplomacy was a deliberately lost art and the kickbacks were sweet. My eyebrows go up when anyone tries rehabilitating Boris' reputation re: Ukraine. He'll spend a long time in solitary confinement in the next life if there is any cosmic justice. | | |
| ▲ | UpsideDownRide 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Have you considered that Boris could understand the situation better than you? People thinking that Russia can honor deals just baffle me. | | |
| ▲ | dwoldrich 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Of course I considered he had information I don't have, I also don't trust him nor his judgement nor his friends nor his handlers and your attempt to rehabilitate him is, as I said earlier, quite an eyebrow raiser. Does anyone remember Brexit and how he was hammering on that? I swear people are memory-holing this guy. Partygate hints at a monster, a professional liar. Were you personally for diplomacy at any point in this process? Do you know why diplomacy broke down? (And do you know/can you recall why before you go research it now?) Have you personally gotten what you feel is a solid reason for the breakdown in talks? |
| |
| ▲ | taneq 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Send in the Bees With Teeth. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ninkendo 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah and also the UK should have just let Nazi Germany take over. And France should not have resisted as much, that caused too much suffering. And basically anyone who opposed the holocaust. Sure, six million Jews died, but by defeating the people who did it, even more people died. Better to just let them do it. |
|
|
| ▲ | vuurmot 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
