Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy blasted his European allies Thursday for what he portrayed as the continent’s slow, fragmented and inadequate response to Russia’s invasion nearly four years ago and its continued international aggression.
Addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Zelenskyy listed a litany of grievances and criticisms of Europe that he said have left Ukraine at the mercy of Russian President Vladimir Putin amid an ongoing U.S. push for a peace settlement.
Zelensky isn’t wrong, but even peacekeeping missions are extremely politically unpopular in Western Europe right now.
The French left is basically saying “it’s not our issue, we shouldn’t get involved”. The far right say the same. The incumbents are barely hanging on to their remaining political capital
I feel bad for him
He hasn’t realized he’s just a tool yet?
Congrats Bill Murray, your comedy movie has transcended pop culture.
Watch out for that first step. It’s a doozy!
Ned Ryerson!
I wish the EU would get off the pot and destroy Russia already. It is a dagger pointed at their backside, just waiting for an open conflict to erupt between the US and the EU. Getting rid of Russia would go a long way towards safeguarding democracy and human decency.
Plus, the EU can invest into Ukraine. They have excellent resources, and truly blooded soldiers with expertise in modern warfare. Having them teach the EU how to fight sooner than later would be invaluable if the US attacks the EU.
Be it humanitarian or pragmatic, there is no downside in the EU doing the right thing.
China is far more likely to do something about Russia than the EU is.
I wouldn’t be surprised if China takes a bite out of Russia. It would be a way to look like a ‘good and tough guy’, and would avoid the risks that comes with trying to take Taiwan. Right now, Russia is in no shape to defend their eastern flank.
Personally I think it is more likely for China to attack Taiwan, but the Russian option is certainly there if Xi gets cold feet.
Europe could definitely do more, but I don’t think a brute force removal of the current russian elite is feasible without huge loss of life.
Since apparently these days you could just fly into a capital and kidnap a president after a few months of training, simulation and bribery maybe they could do something like that for Putin and the main Russian oligarchs. Clear out the trash in one go and avoid war. But I think this is also too optimistic.
Timidity is a good way to lose control over a situation - be it at a personal or national level. The longer that the EU drags their feet, the harder things will become when the choice to take action is no longer possible.
One way or another, the EU should do more. Support Ukraine directly, declare war on Putin, call in Agent 47. The important thing, is that inaction inherently lends itself to allowing someone more assertive to take control. That someone shouldn’t be Putin nor Trump.
I wish the EU would get off the pot and destroy Russia already.
You mean the regime and the mobsters aiming to abolish all restrictions on their wealth.
there is no downside in the EU doing the right thing
I feel like that’s a really easy thing to say if one ignores that Europe has lived through two world wars and many of the people who fought them are still alive.
No. Your position is what gave Nazi Germany the opportunity to do all the things it did. Russia is kidnapping Ukranian children, sending drones into EU territory, sabotaging infrastructure with their shadow fleet, manipulating American elections, and more.
Russia is an enemy of the EU, and should be taken care of. Delaying what must be done, will only ensure that Russia and Dogey America can work together to spitroast European nations.
Totally, man.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Destroying a country is “the right thing”? Homey you’re part of the problem.
nazi simp. ewwwwww
The destruction of Nazi Germany is a good thing. Same goes for Imperial Japan, and the American Confederacy. The Russia we have today sucks, and should be taken out. The people of Russia certainly aren’t benefiting from their leadership, and sometimes an forceful change by external powers is the better way out of a bad situation.
As an American, I am expecting a 2nd American Civil War. I would like outside nations to align against Dogey America, be it by pen or sword. What is good for the goose, is also good for the gander.
What about Israel? Should it be “destroyed” as well?
Considering that they engage in genocide, I would say so.
YES
deleted by creator
With all due respect, you might want to improve your English reading comprehension before participating in English-language political arguments.
Now you’re being willfully ignorant. He’s made clear his meaning, definitions, and point. If you still refuse to interpret it in the way he clearly intended, that’s your problem.
Marshall Plans are essential for replacing a bad nation with a better one. Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and much of the EU were put on a much better path because of them.
In my nation, Reconstruction was halted early. Aside from limiting the power of surviving members of the confederacy, a continued Reconstruction would have allowed people of good character to leave a greater mark on Southern society. The building of a better nation, is crucial for rehabilitating a broken one.
I hardly think it’s “humanitarian” to “get rid of/destroy Russia” or any other country full of innocent people just living their lives, simply because their leaders are fucking the world over (and I’m not just saying because as an American, I can relate). Regime change? Sure, absolutely, let’s try it. Talking about the whole nation as if they were an infestation with no real purpose other than the eradication of “human decency”? Those are literal, almost verbatim, Nazi talking points my friend. Please be better than that, I know you can
It depends on what is meant by “destroy”. I interpret it as “destroy in its current form”, not “erase from the map”.
Destroy in the way that Nazi Germany was destroyed, or the British Empire was destroyed. The people and places still exist, but are structured differently.
Not in the way that Palestine is being destroyed now where there is literally bare emptiness where the people were.
And he is not wrong. European support can be adequately described as Too little too late
Europe just loves to shit talk the US at every opportunity, yet consistently underfunds their share of NATO. This is a European conflict yet all European leaders do is talk. Of course their defense spending is woefully small, they just rely on the US military to secure their interests.
Don’t look to the US to lead everything and then also complain about the US leading everything.
Europe has a lot of talk.
US support was too little too late. Biden was a failure across the board.
You’re not wrong, but it wasn’t just him. It was a group effort.
That is true. Everyone was letting Biden take the lead, somehow thinking he knew what he was doing though.
deleted by creator
Jeez, who pulled you out of /r/thedonald’s casket? Are they reassigning people to haunt Lemmy now?
Tankies are unsurprisingly regurgitating the same talking points as MAGA fascists. They are all on the same team.
They aren’t wrong though - the USSR got somewhere around $100-150B from Lend Lease. Ukraine has gotten something like $300B already.
But it’s certainly not money laundering. Wars cost a lot in the modern age. The real question is why are countries giving so much but only to keep Ukraine from losing.
It’s embarrassing for Russia that this war is now longer than their war against Germany in WWII but it’s also sort of embarrassing for Ukraine’s allies.
EDIT: I was estimating in today’s dollars, from Wikipedia - A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $690 billion in 2024 when accounting for inflation) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[3] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to other Allies.
The USSR also got a second front. Western allies were also fighting Germany, even if they could have easily stayed out of it. The EU knows some of their members are next on the Russian menu, and still they refuse to fight for their survival.
I honestly think the EU can only win by helping Ukraine. Russia and the US see the EU as weak abd indecisive, which is why they think they can take advantage of it. If the EU shows itself to be strong and a major power in its own right, they’re likely to back off. Both Putin and Trump only respect strength and force, and Ukraine is the best opportunity for the EU to show that.
On top of that, they’ll gain a valuable ally with the most effective and creative army in the world.
There is too much to win for the EU, and nothing to lose. Just end this war by liberating Ukraine.
While I wholeheartedly agree, war is always a loss. And I think Russia is treading carefully knowing exactly what the West will allow. (And manipulating their biggest obstacle.)
You’re absolutely right. War costs everybody. That money would be better spent to improve people’s lives instead of destroying it. But when someone attacks you, not defending yourself may end up costing more. And helping (and gaining) an ally is better than losing them.
But more than that: the EU showing its strength can discourage further aggression from Russia. And maybe the US.
Your whole framing is suspect, not to mention you’re talking finances and you can’t even figure out that $150 B (EDIT: as written in the post, when I posted this I didn’t check that the nominal figure really was) in 1944 dollars is closer to $2,800 B in 2025 dollars.
$11.3 B in 1944 dollars is equal to $207 B in 2025 dollars.
It was in today’s dollars. See my edit. And I don’t think it is suspect to ask Ukraine’s allies to do more to help them actually win when Zelensky is saying it himself ad nauseam.
What does a win for Ukraine look like to you? Just wondering.
And btw, from an outsider perspective it’s funny and cringe to see the attacks on your comment. I’m afraid those commenters don’t have wherewithal to be as embarrassed as they should be, but it’s a good point, that Ukraine has gotten a lot more outside funding (about $380 bn) than the USSR did to defeat Germany in WWII (about $250 bn in today’s $). I hadn’t noticed that.
Edit: the commenter above (Skiluros) made up the $2.8tn figure by applying inflation to a commenter above saying that the USSR had received less money through lend-lease than Ukraine has since the invasion by Russia. This figure Is wrong because the original commenter was already discussing inflation-adjusted figures, and they refuse to correct the mistake.
According to Wikipedia’s article on lend-lease, the USSR got $11.3bn, which today would roughly be $250bn. It’s higher than what Greg said (which I assumed was taking inflation into account, hence me cheking), but still lower than what Ukraine has gotten (assuming the $300bn is correct, didn’t fact check that).
I wasn’t refusing to correct the mistake, thanks. I just hadn’t checked my replies until now. I have made the edits now to clarify.
I have no clue around the exact sum provided to the USSR (although I have read about the nature of the support and what it focused on). I am just pointing you can’t compare dollars in a nominal manner.
Tell me you don’t understand how inflation works without telling me you don’t understand how inflation works
Tell me you don’t understand geopolitical strategy around an expansionist nuclear state works without telling me you don’t understand how geopolitical strategy around an expansionist nuclear state works
Tell me you have a reductive and naive view of history and current events without telling me you have a reductive and naive view of history and current events
Though your snippy reply maybe doesn’t deserve it, respectfully- the figures I quoted were in today’s dollars. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed people would know that though.
deleted by creator
I don’t think we want to change the mind of someone who is willing to give up the lives of Ukrainians because is it too expensive to help them fight the fascist empire trying to wipe them out.
deleted by creator
That’s just plain wrong. The allies fought the axis on multiple fronts. If that’s not support, then I don’t know what is.
The allies did try to hurt the ussr every way possible too though. Hitler’s rise was only possible because the fear of the commies that hitler hated.
The russians at one point were fighting in 17 fronts with the largest army ever assembled it is said.
They had one front. The 17 fronts were subdivisions of that one front. That’s like saying that Hitler fought on 7 fronts because he had 4 Heeresgruppen in the east.
It was not just in ww2 they were at war constantly from their founding. Civil wars with the whites, abbritish invasion half assed though it was at archangel in conjunction with them. Not sure if japanese were still contesting the far east after they wiped out the russian fleet and sent their army packing in the tsar days in the 00’s.
The west sponsored a lot of civil strife and helped invasions to prove communism does not work.
The results of which made it more likely the worst sort of military leader would take over, as it did with stalin. It totally worked, for capital. More afraid of reform than absolute rulers, let alone all that seizing the means of production talk.
Anyway when the US got involved, we helped them enough to not collapse, but let them both wear each other out while we leisurely took egypt, sicily, italy, then finally d day.
Thats actually so true.
Who chose this picture 😅
The US is dead set against Ukraine now. They just cannot directly repudiate the alliance now, the admin needs the military on their side.
They even want to blow up nato, trying to use greenland to do so, but apparently found the patriotic fervor of expansion could not overcome our fraternity with europe, yet.
The president is compromized by both russia and israel, and in alliance with them. Both have hoardes of kompromat on politicians and swells it is not limited to the president
It really is true, I am surprised how so many could not see it
You mean to say western countries are betraying their ally?! No way!!! /s
At what point have we betrayed Ukraine? European countries are very far from perfect but we did not betray Ukraine, sure we could have done more but at this point only the European Union is footing the bill for the war. I do not see China, India, Brazil, South Africa or Japan for example sending billions in aid to Ukraine, let alone Trump.
This Month:
Japan announces $6 billion in support for Ukraine.
I hereby also announce $100 billion in support of Ukraine. Announcements aren’t worth much.
At what point have we betrayed Ukraine?
Literally since it is an independent country. Ukraine was, already well before 2022, the poorest country in Europe. The EU-exported model of neoliberalism, austerity and privatization led to catastrophic results for the Ukrainian economy, leading to drug abuse, crime, lack of healthcare, malnutrition, violence and unemployment, resulting in net population losses of above 10 million between 1991 and 2022, counting increased mortality, mass emigration and lack of births. Europe literally hollowed out Ukraine and made it desperately poor.
The same EU exported model that made Poland, Romania and Bulgaria as rich as they are today. But also what made Hungary or Greece what they are today, right?
Turns out corruption and internal politics have more influence than anything, but the EU has been a net gain overall for any country that actually gave it an honest try.
Romania and Bulgaria are rich? I’m Spanish, a country by no means rich, and we have tons of Romanian immigrants because the working conditions there are extremely hard, and they suffered similar issues:
This is especially true for Bulgaria, they lost like a freaking third of the population since 1990 (from 9mn to 6.4mn in 2024). By what metric are they rich? GDP per capita? How about access to housing, to healthcare, to quality education, the ability to stay in rural areas with non-decrepit infrastructure…
Regarding Poland, the country may be richer as a whole (again, using GDP per capita as metric), but are the people faring better? Look at the share of national income by the bottom 50% of the people:
Maybe he should look elsewhere for help. Europe is only going to help if there is sufficient profit to be had.
