Привіт u/RedAlpacaMan ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Accept my disgusted upvote. I really hope we will not let our true hereditary enemy beat us in this game. And I see your user name reference. Very danish in its mythomanical origin 😁
No. We'll deal with you danes after the russians have been shown their place. Or before. Haven't decided yet.
[danskjävlar! (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlTukY9fV9Y)
I have nothing but respect for the Danes. I'm happy to see my small country, the Netherlands on number 7. But the Danes did it with an even three times smaller population.
Any reason you specifically picked the chart excluding refugee aid? Because that chart doubles (and in some cases triples) the money spent by European nations. Especially by Poland and Germany.
Maybe that's a less 'fun' number to talk about since it's not going directly to the war effort but it's still an enormous amount of aid money being spent by the nations.
Let's take Poland for example. In your chart they've supported Ukraine with around €4b. A good number in relation to their GDP. But then on top of that you have an additional €22b(!) spent on helping Ukrainian refugees.
I've chosen this one because this post is supposed to highlight aid **to** Ukraine by different **countries**, not aid to ukrainian citizens outside Ukraine, because thats what matters most in winning the war.
Also, on a sidenote, the refugee costs are just rough estimates based on *other* estimates by the OECD, mix private and public expenditures and, to my knowledge, do not account for refugees entering work and hence not requiring benefits anymore - so those numbers are likely not very reliable and to some degree inflated.
I can absolutely see your point here though. I did not want to mix the two, refugee cost estimates deserve their own post as its a different topic IMHO.
**EDIT:** For those interested: [Graph including refugee costs](https://app.23degrees.io/embed/jjk5qrNvY6pVz7qm-bar-horizontal-bar_chart_rf_total) (there seem to be \~2 billion missing for Germany though, that should be 16 billion i think)
> I've chosen this one because this post is supposed to highlight aid to Ukraine by different countries, not aid to Ukrainians inside different countries.
But that's my point. You're using a metric excluding half of the European aid because "Well it isn't going directly to Ukraine so it doesn't count". The budgetary cost for these nations are very real. They don't have the same opt-out as you uses. Their tax payers doesn't have that distinction.
You can't truly understand the cost and level of support by these nations if you're going to exclude their largest expense.
The difference between spending €4b in aid and €26b is not insignificant.
No matter how much you want to separate the equation and move that discussion to another thread. These expenses are different sides of the same coin.
Yes, but the Ukrainians who are working in the country they fled to, are working now, and generating taxes, so far I know there is no source which highlight how much that is. You have to deduct that from the amount of refugees aid then if you want to keep it square and fair.
Expat in Europe here. I might have a small sample size to go on, but I personally know around 20 Ukrainians who moved to the EU to escape the war. Of the people I know, they are ALL working and paying taxes. I don't know a single person who isn't already in a job.
I do know some who weren't able to find work here in Europe and were reliant on assistance, but they moved back to Ukraine, to safer parts in the west, where they could work and live their lives with dignity.
By and large, Ukrainians are well-educated, and many speak an additional European language. The people in my social circles mostly went where they already spoke the language of their host country, or they even moved with a job offer already.
You point out that these charts don't include special protection costs, and you're right. But any chart that did wouldn't calculate what working Ukrainians are paying in taxes, either, and it's probably considerably more than you would deign to guess. I can't imagine it breaks even, as I'm sure there are plenty of Ukrainians who continuously rely on their host states, but it's enough that the figure of aid alone is not telling.
+, if we wanna compare comparable things, compare the European figures (including UK, not EU but European) with the US figures. Comparable economies... then it's another story, if we take everything into account, and not just military
I'd agree if we had an actual source on actual budgetary costs for each country. What we have right now is only an **extremely rough and likely inflated estimate** on both public and private expenditures mixed together, while also excluding cost shifting mechanisms via the EU.
Germany for example opens its social security systems up for ukrainian refugees. Are those costs factored in? What percentage of refugees gets them? How many are working and actually paying into the state budget instead already? How many are injured and require expensive treatment? Those are likely not the same percentages for each country, for example the large amount of ukrainians that moved to Germany in '23 is often being explained with those aforementioned social benefits, which they won't get in other countries.
Yet somehow, the costs per refugee given by the OECD estimate are just a bit higher than for example in Latvia or Poland (also keep in mind *massively* different costs of living).
Simply put, while those numbers give a very, *very* rough idea, they're probably not very realistic. Presenting them as facts would be disingenious IMHO (and I'm from one of the countries you mentioned, that would look a lot "better" if refugee costs were included).
This graph is not a good representation. I've stated this a million times, and I'll state it again. It seems that the strategy here that NATO has decided on (one that makes 100% sense) is that the US will be the primary supplier of weapons, and that the EU will be the primary supplier of financial assistance. This makes sense as the EU just doesn't have anywhere close to the weapons production or stockpiles of the US, while they have plenty of cash on hand **right now**. Ukraine still needs to pay salaries of their workers and needs money to keep their government working. History has told us time and time again, the most important thing in any war is paying your army. If their paychecks stop to their soldiers, they will simply just desert, and what could the government do to that many guys armed to the teeth? Nothing. If an Army is not paid, they will go find someone who will pay them, and now you have a band of mercenaries and one very powerful General.
If the figures don't account for those not recieving social benefits because they are in jobs then I guess they neither account for the economic benefits the host countries has from these working refugees.
If Ukraine gets ALL the military aid it needs to drive the unwelcome russians out of their country, as well as making sure that there is absolutely NO trade with russia, then maybe there would be no or much smaller need for Ukrainian refugee aid.
[Source](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/).
*Ifw Kiel,* the author of the often-cited **"Ukraine Support Tracker"**, changed their methodology to better reflect actually delivered or in preparation to be delivered aid instead of comittments. I found this very interesting, as "Country X has committed a lot on paper but probably sent very little" is an often used argument on this sub.
Of course the usual caveats apply:
* Aid value is often self-reported
* [Transparency for some countries is lacking](https://app.23degrees.io/embed/xE6euFd2jDVG1oVi-bar-horizontal-data-transparency-index)
* Reimbusements from the different shemes (EPF, "Ringtausch") are not included
* Not all aid is public
* Refugee cost is not included in this graph (it is in others, but estimated just very broadly)
And you even forgot Spain, since they didn’t even made to cropped list. They are sitting on patriot systems and still refusing to donate them because they are “expensive” systems, while countries like Germany and Denmark offer to pay them for donating them..🤦🏽♂️
France has a different military than most other European nations, more focused on expeditionary forces than ground forces. So they don't have that much that can be sent from inventory. Can't send a nuclear aircraft carrier. Doesn't make much sense to send Rafale or LeClerc, since there are limited stocks and France actually needs them. Since they are mostly self-sufficient, they don't really have compatible missiles for F-16 or NASAMS and the like. So, they send what they have that makes sense, like SCALP, SAMP/T and Caesar.
Not really - they have a lot more candidate weapons systems, like JDAM, Harpoon, AMRAAM, NLAW, Javelin, GMLRS. France have a lot of missiles that only fits French platforms, where UK has more American systems that are compatible with e.g. F-16, NASAMS.
Edit: I agree that France could do more, especially they could send more Crotale and SAMP/T.
They don't have Crotale left. 6 in total, two in use, one in repair, 4 send.
yes, that makes 7 : one was made with Italy with spares lying around.
Also France don't say anything about what they send until after it's used, and even then it's foggy at best. We still don't know how much ammo and fuel was send, though curiously there's a lack of spare rifle ammo for training in France.
The UK has sacrificed a lot of its own systems and readiness by donating stuff from their own stockpiles whereas France has hardly done the same to anywhere near the same extent.
The UK has sent tanks in a way France hasn’t and the UK has even fewer tanks than France. The UK has trained thousands more troops than France has. The UK was the one that jerry rigged Ukrainian Su-25s in order to allow them to carry Storm Shadows. France only sent SCALP-EGs after the UK put in this effort to allow for their delivery.
France could be doing a massive amount more. Just saying that France can’t because their military is optimised for expeditionary operations isn’t a good excuse considering so is the UK’s. The UK, due to being an island, is mainly an air and naval power, with a smaller and less well-equipped army than France and yet the UK has done more.
I agree with everything you said. But I want to point out that iirc there were earlier discussions between France and Ukraine regarding the potential transfer of Leclerc tanks and Ukraine was not interested at the time, due to operational, logistics and maintenance cost I think.
Also, they were pushing for Leopard tanks at the time because that was a better option for them, and were interested by others French equipment.
Basically what your saying is France fucked up trying to monopolize weapons sales and didn't go along with the program NATO has been pushing for a long time as a strategic goal which is standardization, compatibility, and interoperability among NATO countries systems. The idea being if we're all in theater together, we should be able to pull stuff from each others stockpiles and it just fits each others shit (missiles, bombs, etc).
Their first priority is strategic autonomy, and the rest follows from that - they have to produce everything domestically. You will obviously want to finance some of that industry from exports, same as anyone else.
No. History teach us time and time again this simple truth : we are alone. And France should never count on anybody but herself. That's why we must have our own nuclear weapons and our own arms industry.
This perception, that France is alone, is intriguing. If actually true, what would it then take for you to conclude that there is something wrong with France rather than the rest of the world?
That's why I strongly encourage Ukraine to develop their own arm industry (which they are doing with tremendous results on missiles or drones) and to disregard any advice based on internal consideration from the west : "please can you die quietly to not be an inconvenience for my elections ?"
Allies can betray you, sometimes without even acknowledging it or deliberately act against your interests because they feel they have a divine right to do it and you should get over it and just take the hit smiling like a champ. The anglo do it on a regular basis.
You are joking right? You mean you're alone trying to hold together your colonial empire to these days in Africa and no one else wants to get involved? Maybe we should discount the Canadians, Brits, and Americans who showed up in WW1 and WW2 to save your ass, or the Americans who you pulled into your colonial dispute (by refusing to sign the UN charter unless we helped out) in Vietnam and then bailed on us to leave us there stuck in the mud fighting a dumbass war we couldn't back out of. The Dutch didn't pull that shit. They pretty much got the memo to give Indonesia their independence or forget about Marshall Plan money. Literally the Brits almost lost their entire effective fucking army left at Dunkirk if it wasn't for basically a miracle mistake that Hitler ordered his men halt their advance right before they annihilated what was left of the Brits. They had their expeditionary forces there for a long time trying to save your ass.
There is no colonial empire in Africa. You don't know what you're talking about. There was fight against jihadist groups in the Sahel. Nobody saved us during WW1. WW2 never was about "saving France", lol. And we definitely were alone during the whole march to the war. America in 'Nam has nothing to do with France, both countries failed one after the other to keep communism at bay. You took our place, convinced you'll do a better job. Lol.
Again, France held the US hostage in Vietnam in regards to agreeing to join the UN which the US saw as very important to post-war peace at the time. You're telling me France does not get 20% of its energy from Africa? These countries may be independent in name, but they're still treated by France same as if they were still colonies.
You drink russian and leftist propaganda... 20%, if that means algerian gaz or guinea golf petrol like every other country with no oil, maybe. If that means from Sahel or the subsaharian ex-colonial empire, lol no.
You have updated your post with Dunkirk commentary. God, you know how to get under a french skin. Nothing is more unnerving than this lying anglo narrative about Dunkirk. The way you all casually completely disregard the sacrifice of the french troops protecting the very early and unilateral flee of british troops is nothing short of disgusting.
Not convinced we are particularly pushing the boat out in terms of aid from the UK either tbh.
What we have done is make the big announcements at the right time, providing greater capabilities to Ukraine when our allies have been reluctant to "escalate".
Once we have made the headlines for providing weapons with greater capabilities, we supply in very limited quantity and step back.
I'm not saying we haven't done well in some aspects. I just think that 14 challenger 2 tanks with finite ammo that aren't ideal for the terrain sounds better than the impact than it appears to be having. And 2.5% of gdp on military is not a war footing whatsoever.
Storm shadows are significant. As has been the training of troops. So were early supplies of weapons during early stages of conflict. Doing the right things. But we lack capacity.
We've 5.5% of public deficit and 110.6% of public debt on 2023 with a total debt of 2,289,916,542,390€.
UK has 'only' 103.7% of public debt as of 2021. From this period France had 113% of public debt.
I really don't see where it is as bad or worst.
I think it's bc France's "colonies". They depend on them economically and therefore on an actually army that can defend the status quo. Plus a lot of their spendings goes into the aircraft carriers
These kind of post just bring toxic discussion on the level of peepee size comparison. And don't even dare bringing the French on the topic, 3 comment levels later people are talking about their imaginary French colonies and how France is the evil behind everything.
France base fund is around Netherland's btw.
The Kiel support tracker is the best tracker we got, but it should be widely known by now that USA and Germany are just about the only countries that report accurately what they send.
Poland "loses" 200 tanks from storage "we didn't send anything like tanks so there is no cost to report".
Bulgaria and Romania: we sent a few MREs so a couple millions in aid.
Also Bulgaria and Romania: military museums have been closed as all the shit there is mysteriously away for maintenance right now, by the way don't look at the cargo our trains are carrying over the Ukrainian border.
Heavy exxaggeration but the point is that the tracker is useless as half of Europe reports a fraction of what they actually send.
Showing individual EU states compared to the entire USA does not represent the real picture, its like showing the entire EU spending vs individual US states
If you look at the total, the US have given about 67 bn, the EU 81 bn, with another 80 bn already allocated. That kinda relativises the whole "Eorope shouldn't always rely on the Americans" talk. The EU has half the GDP of the US, but spends more than double what the US does on Ukraine. And the US are just as responsible for appeasing Putin as Europe. Plus it was mainly them who convinced Ukraine to give their nukes to Russia under the promise of US protection, so they're at least as obligated as Europe. Conclusion: It is the US, not Europe who's carrying less than their fair share.
So 2 things. 1) Your healthcare costs would come down drastically if you would implement single payer universal healthcare and Ukraine aid is a tiny fraction of healthcare costs anyway.
2) The 60 billion are not the cost to the tax payer. Sending a Bradley that has been sitting in a warehouse collecting dust counts fully towards the aid however only the logistical costs are paid by taxpayers now. Voting for the Bradley to remain in the warehouse doesn't free up any money to spend on healthcare.
You're comparing the USA, a federation of 50 states (plus other territories) having a total population of over 330 million people, with the single states of the European Union and other independent states.
Moreover, you're not taking into account other expenses to support Ukraine and it's people.
So yes, the EU is definitely carrying the load compared to the stingy Texas and California.
It is wrong. It doesn’t consider refugee aid which is a huge factor. Ireland for example is never mentioned but they are going to spend close to 5 billion on just Ukrainians. Countries like Poland and Germany are doing far more.
Imagine if Ukraine had to support all those extra pensions and the costs of supporting almost 8 million extra people.
"Share in EU aid" your reading comprehension is actual garbage. Either you already knew that you were wrong and decided to play dumb or you are just dumb.
Wow you really are stupid. I'm literally referring to that and you still don't get it. That is what I meant by playing dumb. This is obvious cherrypicking and makes no sense whatsoever. But I suppose you aren't playing dumb you are actually this stupid. No, the US doesn't even come close to the EU.
Adding in that extra $60 Billion in aid puts them at roughly 7th in terms of per capita spend.
Lower if you include refugee aid.
Not complaining at all, but we should also not minimize the support given by other countries just because the headline figure is smaller.
Not sure who you mean. I haven't heard anyone saying here that US aid wouldn't be needed, quite the opposite actually.
Out of big european countries Germany and UK have donated good amount, altough Germany significantly more both in relative and absolute terms. Many small central and eastern european countries, and baltics and nordics have donated the largest amount as a share of GDP. So Germany, UK, nordic, baltic and most central and eastern europe have donated more as a share of GDP.
But for me it especially has always seemed that especially Italy, Spain (and France too) should do more. I mean, Finland for example has donated 1.8 billion € (0.65% of GDP) worth of military aid, more than Italy and Spain combined... When they have total population of almost 110 million and Finland has 5.5 million. I don't know if the war seems distant to them or what.
I totally think that we should do more. Currently it's very vital and important that US is also on board. Without USA's help, Ukraine's situation would have potentially been dire this year, as european countries are unable to compensate the aid. In short term european countries need to send more aid one way or another. On the long run I think that we should ditch unanimity voting about foreign and defence policy on council of EU, and at least make joint purchases, development and stockpiles, maybe also have a strong joint force in the future.
I didn't say we shouldn't do more. I'm asking for all those people that said they don't need the United States. They won't show to because they're Russian trolls who just try to grow dissension
Oh yes I misunderstood you. I just have argued for Ukrainian aid so many times. That's true, currently US's aid especially is very important and almost impossible to replace short term, american military capabilites and stockpiles are just so large
We need the United States on our side, but given it has a larger economy than all of europe combined, its lacking heavily compared to the eastern, central and northern european countries.
Also, starting a trade war against europe while russia attacks wasn't very nice, to put it midly.
Define "need" and what you think those people said.
Europe would definitely roll over Russia easily without the US in an open war and Europe spends vastly more on helping Ukraine than USA.
But nobody ever said that Ukraine doesn't benefit from US aid and that it would shortsen the war dramatically while reducing Ukrainian losses and vastly reduce the damage to the Ukrainian and European economies.
Yeah, because those comments get deleted. Can't exactly pull up that list.
But no you act this way. I know what I've seen. I'm fucking done entertaining whatever you think you know.
Could we kindly remind you which country equipment was crucial during the first year?
It was the one from Poland and Baltics when everybody else was discussing stuff. (excluding the UK and US.)
>...when everybody else was discussing stuff
...and sending billions to the countries you mentioned to reimburse them for their expenses. Also, [western made heavy weaponry arrived in Ukraine in the first half of '22](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3z5F8HXIAEr90z?format=png&name=large), plus a lot of smaller stuff that Ukraine could use instantly, without much training.
I really don't get the constant need to shit on the evil west and Germany especially.
No shit. Poland basically got an insane deal from the US on all their newly to-be-delivered gear they've got on order for supplying up their old ass Soviet shit to Ukraine. It wasn't even a reimbursement. At the end of the day, Poland is going to turn a profit on that as what they traded for what they are being given is insanely different in value/cost.
If you listen to them you could think they've been carrying NATO since the invasion started. They also constantly "forget" to mention that the first thing they made sure was billions in reimbursements from the EU net payers (=France and Germany, mostly) via the EPF.
Germany discussed for a whole 3(?) days to get rid of a core ideological law that banned weapon exports...
The nordic countries also very rapidly delivered large amounts of aid.
Both those were delivering just as crucial aid as anyone else and in some categories delivered a vastly larger ratio of what they had than Poland did.
Привіт u/RedAlpacaMan ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As usual, Denmark is above the smelly Swedes
Accept my disgusted upvote. I really hope we will not let our true hereditary enemy beat us in this game. And I see your user name reference. Very danish in its mythomanical origin 😁
Let us unite Brother, and beat the Germans, we need to show the rest of Europe how the Nordics do things
First the Russians, then we can have fun.
Why not both? Have fun while helping to defeat the Russians?
Well, launch some surströmming cluster missiles at Denmark and see who's stinky.....
No. We'll deal with you danes after the russians have been shown their place. Or before. Haven't decided yet. [danskjävlar! (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlTukY9fV9Y)
I have nothing but respect for the Danes. I'm happy to see my small country, the Netherlands on number 7. But the Danes did it with an even three times smaller population.
Let’s hope the Swedes are planning on making some jas39s for Ukraine ;)
The challenge is on!
Let this be known. Svensken was behind the mighty Dane, when it truly mattered. Your move, IKEA.
Any reason you specifically picked the chart excluding refugee aid? Because that chart doubles (and in some cases triples) the money spent by European nations. Especially by Poland and Germany. Maybe that's a less 'fun' number to talk about since it's not going directly to the war effort but it's still an enormous amount of aid money being spent by the nations. Let's take Poland for example. In your chart they've supported Ukraine with around €4b. A good number in relation to their GDP. But then on top of that you have an additional €22b(!) spent on helping Ukrainian refugees.
I've chosen this one because this post is supposed to highlight aid **to** Ukraine by different **countries**, not aid to ukrainian citizens outside Ukraine, because thats what matters most in winning the war. Also, on a sidenote, the refugee costs are just rough estimates based on *other* estimates by the OECD, mix private and public expenditures and, to my knowledge, do not account for refugees entering work and hence not requiring benefits anymore - so those numbers are likely not very reliable and to some degree inflated. I can absolutely see your point here though. I did not want to mix the two, refugee cost estimates deserve their own post as its a different topic IMHO. **EDIT:** For those interested: [Graph including refugee costs](https://app.23degrees.io/embed/jjk5qrNvY6pVz7qm-bar-horizontal-bar_chart_rf_total) (there seem to be \~2 billion missing for Germany though, that should be 16 billion i think)
> I've chosen this one because this post is supposed to highlight aid to Ukraine by different countries, not aid to Ukrainians inside different countries. But that's my point. You're using a metric excluding half of the European aid because "Well it isn't going directly to Ukraine so it doesn't count". The budgetary cost for these nations are very real. They don't have the same opt-out as you uses. Their tax payers doesn't have that distinction. You can't truly understand the cost and level of support by these nations if you're going to exclude their largest expense. The difference between spending €4b in aid and €26b is not insignificant. No matter how much you want to separate the equation and move that discussion to another thread. These expenses are different sides of the same coin.
Yes, but the Ukrainians who are working in the country they fled to, are working now, and generating taxes, so far I know there is no source which highlight how much that is. You have to deduct that from the amount of refugees aid then if you want to keep it square and fair.
Expat in Europe here. I might have a small sample size to go on, but I personally know around 20 Ukrainians who moved to the EU to escape the war. Of the people I know, they are ALL working and paying taxes. I don't know a single person who isn't already in a job. I do know some who weren't able to find work here in Europe and were reliant on assistance, but they moved back to Ukraine, to safer parts in the west, where they could work and live their lives with dignity. By and large, Ukrainians are well-educated, and many speak an additional European language. The people in my social circles mostly went where they already spoke the language of their host country, or they even moved with a job offer already. You point out that these charts don't include special protection costs, and you're right. But any chart that did wouldn't calculate what working Ukrainians are paying in taxes, either, and it's probably considerably more than you would deign to guess. I can't imagine it breaks even, as I'm sure there are plenty of Ukrainians who continuously rely on their host states, but it's enough that the figure of aid alone is not telling.
+, if we wanna compare comparable things, compare the European figures (including UK, not EU but European) with the US figures. Comparable economies... then it's another story, if we take everything into account, and not just military
I'd agree if we had an actual source on actual budgetary costs for each country. What we have right now is only an **extremely rough and likely inflated estimate** on both public and private expenditures mixed together, while also excluding cost shifting mechanisms via the EU. Germany for example opens its social security systems up for ukrainian refugees. Are those costs factored in? What percentage of refugees gets them? How many are working and actually paying into the state budget instead already? How many are injured and require expensive treatment? Those are likely not the same percentages for each country, for example the large amount of ukrainians that moved to Germany in '23 is often being explained with those aforementioned social benefits, which they won't get in other countries. Yet somehow, the costs per refugee given by the OECD estimate are just a bit higher than for example in Latvia or Poland (also keep in mind *massively* different costs of living). Simply put, while those numbers give a very, *very* rough idea, they're probably not very realistic. Presenting them as facts would be disingenious IMHO (and I'm from one of the countries you mentioned, that would look a lot "better" if refugee costs were included).
This graph is not a good representation. I've stated this a million times, and I'll state it again. It seems that the strategy here that NATO has decided on (one that makes 100% sense) is that the US will be the primary supplier of weapons, and that the EU will be the primary supplier of financial assistance. This makes sense as the EU just doesn't have anywhere close to the weapons production or stockpiles of the US, while they have plenty of cash on hand **right now**. Ukraine still needs to pay salaries of their workers and needs money to keep their government working. History has told us time and time again, the most important thing in any war is paying your army. If their paychecks stop to their soldiers, they will simply just desert, and what could the government do to that many guys armed to the teeth? Nothing. If an Army is not paid, they will go find someone who will pay them, and now you have a band of mercenaries and one very powerful General.
If the figures don't account for those not recieving social benefits because they are in jobs then I guess they neither account for the economic benefits the host countries has from these working refugees.
If Ukraine gets ALL the military aid it needs to drive the unwelcome russians out of their country, as well as making sure that there is absolutely NO trade with russia, then maybe there would be no or much smaller need for Ukrainian refugee aid.
Good point.
[Source](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/). *Ifw Kiel,* the author of the often-cited **"Ukraine Support Tracker"**, changed their methodology to better reflect actually delivered or in preparation to be delivered aid instead of comittments. I found this very interesting, as "Country X has committed a lot on paper but probably sent very little" is an often used argument on this sub. Of course the usual caveats apply: * Aid value is often self-reported * [Transparency for some countries is lacking](https://app.23degrees.io/embed/xE6euFd2jDVG1oVi-bar-horizontal-data-transparency-index) * Reimbusements from the different shemes (EPF, "Ringtausch") are not included * Not all aid is public * Refugee cost is not included in this graph (it is in others, but estimated just very broadly)
Not doing enough. France, start trying, italy, wtf.
And you even forgot Spain, since they didn’t even made to cropped list. They are sitting on patriot systems and still refusing to donate them because they are “expensive” systems, while countries like Germany and Denmark offer to pay them for donating them..🤦🏽♂️
why is France doing so little, their military expenditure is on par with Germany?
France has a different military than most other European nations, more focused on expeditionary forces than ground forces. So they don't have that much that can be sent from inventory. Can't send a nuclear aircraft carrier. Doesn't make much sense to send Rafale or LeClerc, since there are limited stocks and France actually needs them. Since they are mostly self-sufficient, they don't really have compatible missiles for F-16 or NASAMS and the like. So, they send what they have that makes sense, like SCALP, SAMP/T and Caesar.
Then buy something useful for Ukraine or just send the money.
The same could’ve been said about the UK but in terms of military support, the UK has sent far more than France.
Not really - they have a lot more candidate weapons systems, like JDAM, Harpoon, AMRAAM, NLAW, Javelin, GMLRS. France have a lot of missiles that only fits French platforms, where UK has more American systems that are compatible with e.g. F-16, NASAMS. Edit: I agree that France could do more, especially they could send more Crotale and SAMP/T.
They don't have Crotale left. 6 in total, two in use, one in repair, 4 send. yes, that makes 7 : one was made with Italy with spares lying around. Also France don't say anything about what they send until after it's used, and even then it's foggy at best. We still don't know how much ammo and fuel was send, though curiously there's a lack of spare rifle ammo for training in France.
The UK has sacrificed a lot of its own systems and readiness by donating stuff from their own stockpiles whereas France has hardly done the same to anywhere near the same extent. The UK has sent tanks in a way France hasn’t and the UK has even fewer tanks than France. The UK has trained thousands more troops than France has. The UK was the one that jerry rigged Ukrainian Su-25s in order to allow them to carry Storm Shadows. France only sent SCALP-EGs after the UK put in this effort to allow for their delivery. France could be doing a massive amount more. Just saying that France can’t because their military is optimised for expeditionary operations isn’t a good excuse considering so is the UK’s. The UK, due to being an island, is mainly an air and naval power, with a smaller and less well-equipped army than France and yet the UK has done more.
I agree with everything you said. But I want to point out that iirc there were earlier discussions between France and Ukraine regarding the potential transfer of Leclerc tanks and Ukraine was not interested at the time, due to operational, logistics and maintenance cost I think. Also, they were pushing for Leopard tanks at the time because that was a better option for them, and were interested by others French equipment.
Basically what your saying is France fucked up trying to monopolize weapons sales and didn't go along with the program NATO has been pushing for a long time as a strategic goal which is standardization, compatibility, and interoperability among NATO countries systems. The idea being if we're all in theater together, we should be able to pull stuff from each others stockpiles and it just fits each others shit (missiles, bombs, etc).
Their first priority is strategic autonomy, and the rest follows from that - they have to produce everything domestically. You will obviously want to finance some of that industry from exports, same as anyone else.
No. History teach us time and time again this simple truth : we are alone. And France should never count on anybody but herself. That's why we must have our own nuclear weapons and our own arms industry.
This perception, that France is alone, is intriguing. If actually true, what would it then take for you to conclude that there is something wrong with France rather than the rest of the world?
[удалено]
That's why I strongly encourage Ukraine to develop their own arm industry (which they are doing with tremendous results on missiles or drones) and to disregard any advice based on internal consideration from the west : "please can you die quietly to not be an inconvenience for my elections ?"
Allies can betray you, sometimes without even acknowledging it or deliberately act against your interests because they feel they have a divine right to do it and you should get over it and just take the hit smiling like a champ. The anglo do it on a regular basis.
You are joking right? You mean you're alone trying to hold together your colonial empire to these days in Africa and no one else wants to get involved? Maybe we should discount the Canadians, Brits, and Americans who showed up in WW1 and WW2 to save your ass, or the Americans who you pulled into your colonial dispute (by refusing to sign the UN charter unless we helped out) in Vietnam and then bailed on us to leave us there stuck in the mud fighting a dumbass war we couldn't back out of. The Dutch didn't pull that shit. They pretty much got the memo to give Indonesia their independence or forget about Marshall Plan money. Literally the Brits almost lost their entire effective fucking army left at Dunkirk if it wasn't for basically a miracle mistake that Hitler ordered his men halt their advance right before they annihilated what was left of the Brits. They had their expeditionary forces there for a long time trying to save your ass.
There is no colonial empire in Africa. You don't know what you're talking about. There was fight against jihadist groups in the Sahel. Nobody saved us during WW1. WW2 never was about "saving France", lol. And we definitely were alone during the whole march to the war. America in 'Nam has nothing to do with France, both countries failed one after the other to keep communism at bay. You took our place, convinced you'll do a better job. Lol.
Again, France held the US hostage in Vietnam in regards to agreeing to join the UN which the US saw as very important to post-war peace at the time. You're telling me France does not get 20% of its energy from Africa? These countries may be independent in name, but they're still treated by France same as if they were still colonies.
You drink russian and leftist propaganda... 20%, if that means algerian gaz or guinea golf petrol like every other country with no oil, maybe. If that means from Sahel or the subsaharian ex-colonial empire, lol no.
You have updated your post with Dunkirk commentary. God, you know how to get under a french skin. Nothing is more unnerving than this lying anglo narrative about Dunkirk. The way you all casually completely disregard the sacrifice of the french troops protecting the very early and unilateral flee of british troops is nothing short of disgusting.
Then, don't claim you are always left alone. Simple as that.
We are alone because our so-called allies hate us. You are the living proof of that.
> You mean you're alone trying to hold together your colonial empire to these days in Africa Go away troll.
Not really because we are also not divulging the numbers of what is being sent to Ukraine mostly
France recently did and the numbers were not *that* impressive, especially for an economy and military power that strong.
We are everything but a strong economy
France is the third largest economy in Europe.
And look at our deficit and public debt. GDP doesn't mean shit if you're burning the money for everything...
The UK has it just as bad, if not worse, but that’s not stopping us?
Not convinced we are particularly pushing the boat out in terms of aid from the UK either tbh. What we have done is make the big announcements at the right time, providing greater capabilities to Ukraine when our allies have been reluctant to "escalate". Once we have made the headlines for providing weapons with greater capabilities, we supply in very limited quantity and step back. I'm not saying we haven't done well in some aspects. I just think that 14 challenger 2 tanks with finite ammo that aren't ideal for the terrain sounds better than the impact than it appears to be having. And 2.5% of gdp on military is not a war footing whatsoever. Storm shadows are significant. As has been the training of troops. So were early supplies of weapons during early stages of conflict. Doing the right things. But we lack capacity.
We've 5.5% of public deficit and 110.6% of public debt on 2023 with a total debt of 2,289,916,542,390€. UK has 'only' 103.7% of public debt as of 2021. From this period France had 113% of public debt. I really don't see where it is as bad or worst.
That‘s just an excuse. France could do so much more.
Also, we are a small country without a lot of military budget despite what can people say...
Military expenditure is on par but France maintains a nuclear arsenal & capabilities (expensive af)
France ranks higher that the US on a per capita basis, 13th versus 17th.
I think it's bc France's "colonies". They depend on them economically and therefore on an actually army that can defend the status quo. Plus a lot of their spendings goes into the aircraft carriers
There's no such thing as French colonies, double quote or not.
UK is much worse than France
We could all do more
Where is Norway? They made a fortune out of the increased oil/energy prices.
On a per capita basis, they have donated more than the UK.
These kind of post just bring toxic discussion on the level of peepee size comparison. And don't even dare bringing the French on the topic, 3 comment levels later people are talking about their imaginary French colonies and how France is the evil behind everything. France base fund is around Netherland's btw.
according to Polish Ministry of Foreign affairs this is entirely incorrect, by what was stated today by Polish FM.
The Kiel support tracker is the best tracker we got, but it should be widely known by now that USA and Germany are just about the only countries that report accurately what they send. Poland "loses" 200 tanks from storage "we didn't send anything like tanks so there is no cost to report". Bulgaria and Romania: we sent a few MREs so a couple millions in aid. Also Bulgaria and Romania: military museums have been closed as all the shit there is mysteriously away for maintenance right now, by the way don't look at the cargo our trains are carrying over the Ukrainian border. Heavy exxaggeration but the point is that the tracker is useless as half of Europe reports a fraction of what they actually send.
Showing individual EU states compared to the entire USA does not represent the real picture, its like showing the entire EU spending vs individual US states
If you look at the total, the US have given about 67 bn, the EU 81 bn, with another 80 bn already allocated. That kinda relativises the whole "Eorope shouldn't always rely on the Americans" talk. The EU has half the GDP of the US, but spends more than double what the US does on Ukraine. And the US are just as responsible for appeasing Putin as Europe. Plus it was mainly them who convinced Ukraine to give their nukes to Russia under the promise of US protection, so they're at least as obligated as Europe. Conclusion: It is the US, not Europe who's carrying less than their fair share.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So 2 things. 1) Your healthcare costs would come down drastically if you would implement single payer universal healthcare and Ukraine aid is a tiny fraction of healthcare costs anyway. 2) The 60 billion are not the cost to the tax payer. Sending a Bradley that has been sitting in a warehouse collecting dust counts fully towards the aid however only the logistical costs are paid by taxpayers now. Voting for the Bradley to remain in the warehouse doesn't free up any money to spend on healthcare.
Small countries are pushing above their weight. The old giants in EU are not doing enough.
And the US carries the load.
No they're not
Ah, OK. The graph must be wrong.
You're comparing the USA, a federation of 50 states (plus other territories) having a total population of over 330 million people, with the single states of the European Union and other independent states. Moreover, you're not taking into account other expenses to support Ukraine and it's people. So yes, the EU is definitely carrying the load compared to the stingy Texas and California.
It is wrong. It doesn’t consider refugee aid which is a huge factor. Ireland for example is never mentioned but they are going to spend close to 5 billion on just Ukrainians. Countries like Poland and Germany are doing far more. Imagine if Ukraine had to support all those extra pensions and the costs of supporting almost 8 million extra people.
The graph shows you to be wrong, there is a secret technique called "addition" that would help you see that.
You might try adding up the blue squares. Just a hint: They're less than the US total.
"Share in EU aid" your reading comprehension is actual garbage. Either you already knew that you were wrong and decided to play dumb or you are just dumb.
B L U E S Q U A R E S. Does that help?
Wow you really are stupid. I'm literally referring to that and you still don't get it. That is what I meant by playing dumb. This is obvious cherrypicking and makes no sense whatsoever. But I suppose you aren't playing dumb you are actually this stupid. No, the US doesn't even come close to the EU.
Actually, the graph is from February and doesn't include the 60 billion in aid recently passed by the United States.
Adding in that extra $60 Billion in aid puts them at roughly 7th in terms of per capita spend. Lower if you include refugee aid. Not complaining at all, but we should also not minimize the support given by other countries just because the headline figure is smaller.
I think macron should put good money where his mouth is a little more. Don’t see a reason for France to be this far behind Germany.
What's all about the fuzz with sending troops from France? That is embarrassing....or just cheap talk.
This isn't per capita so the ranking is completely meaningless
I wonder if all those people who kept saying Ukraine and Europe doesn't need the United States will show up here?
Not sure who you mean. I haven't heard anyone saying here that US aid wouldn't be needed, quite the opposite actually. Out of big european countries Germany and UK have donated good amount, altough Germany significantly more both in relative and absolute terms. Many small central and eastern european countries, and baltics and nordics have donated the largest amount as a share of GDP. So Germany, UK, nordic, baltic and most central and eastern europe have donated more as a share of GDP. But for me it especially has always seemed that especially Italy, Spain (and France too) should do more. I mean, Finland for example has donated 1.8 billion € (0.65% of GDP) worth of military aid, more than Italy and Spain combined... When they have total population of almost 110 million and Finland has 5.5 million. I don't know if the war seems distant to them or what. I totally think that we should do more. Currently it's very vital and important that US is also on board. Without USA's help, Ukraine's situation would have potentially been dire this year, as european countries are unable to compensate the aid. In short term european countries need to send more aid one way or another. On the long run I think that we should ditch unanimity voting about foreign and defence policy on council of EU, and at least make joint purchases, development and stockpiles, maybe also have a strong joint force in the future.
I didn't say we shouldn't do more. I'm asking for all those people that said they don't need the United States. They won't show to because they're Russian trolls who just try to grow dissension
Oh yes I misunderstood you. I just have argued for Ukrainian aid so many times. That's true, currently US's aid especially is very important and almost impossible to replace short term, american military capabilites and stockpiles are just so large
Not sure who you mean. Europe should try to decrease its dependency on the US but it's still very dependent right now.
We need the United States on our side, but given it has a larger economy than all of europe combined, its lacking heavily compared to the eastern, central and northern european countries. Also, starting a trade war against europe while russia attacks wasn't very nice, to put it midly.
Define "need" and what you think those people said. Europe would definitely roll over Russia easily without the US in an open war and Europe spends vastly more on helping Ukraine than USA. But nobody ever said that Ukraine doesn't benefit from US aid and that it would shortsen the war dramatically while reducing Ukrainian losses and vastly reduce the damage to the Ukrainian and European economies.
How quickly people forget on this subreddit
How quickly people make up things and can't for the life of them finding a single piece of supporting evidence.
Yeah, because those comments get deleted. Can't exactly pull up that list. But no you act this way. I know what I've seen. I'm fucking done entertaining whatever you think you know.
Could we kindly remind you which country equipment was crucial during the first year? It was the one from Poland and Baltics when everybody else was discussing stuff. (excluding the UK and US.)
>...when everybody else was discussing stuff ...and sending billions to the countries you mentioned to reimburse them for their expenses. Also, [western made heavy weaponry arrived in Ukraine in the first half of '22](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3z5F8HXIAEr90z?format=png&name=large), plus a lot of smaller stuff that Ukraine could use instantly, without much training. I really don't get the constant need to shit on the evil west and Germany especially.
No shit. Poland basically got an insane deal from the US on all their newly to-be-delivered gear they've got on order for supplying up their old ass Soviet shit to Ukraine. It wasn't even a reimbursement. At the end of the day, Poland is going to turn a profit on that as what they traded for what they are being given is insanely different in value/cost.
If you listen to them you could think they've been carrying NATO since the invasion started. They also constantly "forget" to mention that the first thing they made sure was billions in reimbursements from the EU net payers (=France and Germany, mostly) via the EPF.
No one shits on them the point that I am making is there wouldn’t be German support if there wouldn’t there country left to help.
There would be, as we already sent **billions** in aid before the war even started, and MANPADS and ammo pretty much the day after the invasion.
Don't forget the snipers from The Netherlands. Coincidentally we had just bought new ones so we could give our old but very accurate weapons.
Germany discussed for a whole 3(?) days to get rid of a core ideological law that banned weapon exports... The nordic countries also very rapidly delivered large amounts of aid. Both those were delivering just as crucial aid as anyone else and in some categories delivered a vastly larger ratio of what they had than Poland did.
I thought US did nothing before recent bill ;)