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.
And he is not wrong. European support can be adequately described as Too little too late
Europe has a lot of talk.
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.
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.
I mean at this point I’m all in on Ukraine and I’m sorry to see my comment interpreted as anything but the hope that Ukraine could get the support they are asking for.
I know peace deals are precarious and complicated, but I dream of nothing less than pre 2014 borders, the end of all Russian hostilities, and a defense pact, if not full inclusion, between Ukraine and the EU.
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 meant Skiluros, not you, hence me referencing the $2800bn figure they made up
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.
You can compare dollars in a nominal manner if you apply inflation indices, that’s what inflation is calculated for. Why did you literally make up the numbers by assuming that it wasn’t inflation-adjusted instead of saying “you can’t compare dollars”?
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.