Ukraine: Europe clearly overtakes US, with total commitments now twice as large

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-clearly-overtakes-us-with-total-commitments-now-twice-as-large/

by thatwasunusual • 3 years ago

31 55 3 years ago

ifw-kiel.de

nickpp5• 3 years ago

We certainly hope so. It was a bad joke last year that the fighters protecting the whole Europe from fascist hordes were mostly equipped by the USA. Germany's initial offer of 5000 helmets will live in infamy...

However, there are certain types of equipment only US can offer, being so technologically ahead of EU. StarLink (with all its controversies) comes to mind.

exar0815• 3 years ago

Somehow, the US seems to have forgotten to get more than "always the same" to the front.

Also, the helmet-bullshit is driven by polish anti-german pis-bullshit. Germany delivered PZH2000 and Gepard, as well as being the first with modern Air Defence. France and Britain were the first with Cruise Missiles. Scandinavia was the first with Tanks. Netherlands the first with modern planes. The Blinken-Deescalatin-Crowd in the US which seems to still believe in escalation management and mutual co-operation with Russia.

Where are ATACMS, more Patriot, more Bradley, more Abrams, more cluster munitions? The material is there, it's high time!

KptMarchewa• 3 years ago

I don't agree with bashing Germany, but Poland was first with tanks, delivering over 300 of them starting from April 2022.

Yoric5• 3 years ago

As far as I understand, the US has a strong problem with stockpiles.

They can send more material to Ukraine, but they want to have enough to also sustain a war in Taiwan. And it's unclear (at least to me) what the Chinese military doctrine would entail, since China has been mostly at peace since the truce with India. If a war for/around Taiwan ends up being the same kind of high-intensity conflict as the war in Ukraine, it has the potential to engulf the yearly US production of ammo in a few weeks.

jamil7• 3 years ago

This attitude always misses the context of the US's deep post WW2 involvement in Europe, the formation of NATO, Gladio etc. right up until Ukraine today. The US has it's own interests in Europe and will continue to do so.

marsa2• 3 years ago

where does this notion of 'protecting the whole Europe from fascist hordes' come from? has there been any indication that Russia genuinely intended to steamroll Europe if they had taken Ukraine as planned?

nickpp5• 3 years ago

From Putin himself. His speeches in the last 20 years. He was quite upfront with his ambitions: restauration of the last Russian Empire, the Soviet Union.

Eastern Europe and ex-USSR republics have been trying to warn the world for quite a while, it's the West who refused to listen.

Read Kasparov's "Winter is Coming" book to understand more.

koonsolo6• 3 years ago

It's about time! In my opinion Europe was a bit asleep about the realities of the world.

Very grateful to all what the US is doing, but in the end this is a war within Europe, and we must know we can't always count on others to be the main contributor of something that is happening "in our neighbourhood".

Also, Europe must really start to consider itself as a world power. Maybe I'm too paranoid, but the democracy within US seems very fragile to me (the 2 party system, all the extreme nutcases that live within).

The Ukraine war has shown us how important it is to defend democracy within and outside of our own borders. And that 'power' cannot always be only manifested through diplomacy.

atdrummond2• 3 years ago

Ukraine is in no way a functioning democracy.

koonsolo6• 3 years ago

Their elections were democratic (if not, please provide some evidence).

And secondly, they were well on their way to keep improving and follow the path of the other ex-soviet states that are now part of the EU.

thatwasunusual2• 3 years ago

They're not perfect, for sure, but I highly doubt they will become more democratic if Russia wins the war.

megapolitics• 3 years ago

It’s a flawed democracy, but it’s on a consistent upward trajectory.

Yoric5• 3 years ago

I agree that the democracy within US is currently in crisis. Not just in the US, mind you – several countries in Europe, but also India, Israel, Turkey, what I've read described as the "putsch belt" in Central Africa, ...

Hopefully, these crises will eventually resolve themselves, but there is no guarantee of that. If anything, the climate and energy crises, as well as the war in Ukraine, are going to make things harder on democracies.

That being said, Europe has never stopped considering itself as a world power. Until now, it aimed mostly for soft power (for a definition of soft power that included having standing armies in a number of African countries). Shifting from soft power to military power is very dangerous, because this has a strong potential to escalate into actual armed conflict. With Russia, of course, but also possibly with Turkey, or China, or the US (in case authoritarianism wins on either side of the Atlantic), ...

As much as possible, I'd prefer soft power. It's not as innocent as it sounds, but it makes fewer victims.

nickpp5• 3 years ago

Europe's mistake was considering Russia part of Europe. Russia is an imperial power part of only the past...

koonsolo6• 3 years ago

As much as possible, I'd prefer soft power. It's not as innocent as it sounds, but it makes fewer victims.

I fully agree with that one. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a stick behind the door. (local expression, don't how how this translates into English ;))

PrimeMcFly• 3 years ago

It's about time! In my opinion Europe was a bit asleep about the realities of the world.

That's an understatement. Imagine if the US hadn't helped at all. Would Europe even be up to the challenge? Europe really needs to get its act together and be less dependent on the US.

ben_w3• 3 years ago

Europe has 1, 2 or 3* of the UN permanent security council seats; but it's not yet a country in its own right.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so: China and the USA currently still make sense, but Russia shouldn't have taken over the USSR seat when the USSR ceased to exist; likewise neither the UK nor France can really justify that position since approximately the Suez crisis, and the vacuums they left behind with the end of Empire means nobody's really representing Africa, the Middle East, nor the Indian subcontinent at that level.

I think South America is also somewhat unenthusiastic about being considered the USA's back yard in this context.

* depending on if this is shorthand for "the EU" like the article (1, France), "western Europe" (2, +UK), or "continental" (3, +Russia).

abstractbeliefs• 3 years ago

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so
a whole bunch of reasons why the permanent seats aren't representative

You're spot on that they aren't representative of the world's interests, but that's because this isn't what the security council is really for.

Taught in geopolitical terms, the UN is the latest iteration of a number of bodies that seek to protect a small alliance's interests in the long term.

The UN was founded by the winners of WWII, in the brief moment of time they could credibly claim that they represented the broader world's interests. Since then, the WWII allies - US/UK/France/Russia/China - have maintained their disproportionate positions to protect their own interests.

The Security council exists for them - it is the only body that can pass legally binding resolutions, it gatekeeps access to the general assembly, and those 5 golden keyholders can individually veto any other UN action.

These kind of bodies (UN, League of Nations, Peace of Westphalia) etc are often couched in ideals and often do have sub-bodies who do excellent work, as the UN does, but in reality, at the highest levels, are actually consider the spoils of war: the right to dictate your position as a lasting member of extraterritorial governance and protect your doctrinal and national interests.

jacquesm3• 3 years ago

Europe was - and probably still is - very tired of war. Effectively we're still in recovery from World War II and this is something that countries that have not seen major wars fought on their land have a hard time understanding.

I think what powered the EU through the last 70 years or so is that I think they - and me! - truly believed that we could outgrow war as a concept. Putin has shown that to be an illusion so now - reluctantly - the EU is gearing up for war again. But a reluctant fighter isn't necessarily a bad one, just one that knows what is at stake. I'm pretty sure that given the very vivid memories of WWII (some of which are still in living memory) that there will be plenty of unity in going after those that made it so.

mcphage• 3 years ago

This is good news for the US, good news for the EU, and good news for Ukraine. The rare news that is good for everyone. Well, except Russia I suppose—but they could just leave.

benterix5• 3 years ago

Not until Putin is alive. We will probably witness a prolonged conflict with varying intensity for several years until he dies. At that point someone in Russia will be able to say this conflict didn't make sense from the very beginning. Currently nobody can say that.

nyanmatt• 3 years ago

Who has the largest commitment to ending the war?

koonsolo6• 3 years ago

What do you mean by 'ending the war'? Ukraine gaining back its sovereignty or (partly) turning into a Russian puppet state?

verdverm5• 3 years ago

The more important question is "How does Ukraine win the peace?"

As important as getting Russia out this time is ensuring they don't do it again in 10-20+ years

benterix5• 3 years ago

Ukrainians. They sacrifice their lives every day to this end.

andreygrehov4• 3 years ago

The only valuable thing on this planet is natural resources. Russia has the resources, Europe doesn’t. End of story.

Mrdarknezz• 3 years ago

https://lkab.com/en/press/europes-largest-deposit-of-rare-ea...

nickpp5• 3 years ago

Japan completely destroys your thesis.

Resources in the ground are worth exactly ZERO. The technology and people to extract and transform those resources are the most valuable thing on this planet. Both are most abundant in US and slightly less in the EU. Asia not far behind but Russia is not even on the map.

andreygrehov4• 3 years ago

Japan buys natural resources from Russia ignoring all the price caps.

This year alone, the US has purchased twice the previous year of uranium from Russia.

Europe, as many other countries, depends on Russian resources.

koonsolo6• 3 years ago

Then please explain why the GDP of Benelux is bigger than that of Russia.

Yoric5• 3 years ago

Best guess: you're not talking of the same definition of "value".

klausjensen• 3 years ago

Russia has enormous resources and could have become an incredibly rich country where all citizens would prosper and have amazing opportunities.

Unfortunately the Russian culture prohibits this. Rampant corruption, citzen apathy and an eternal desire to murder their neighbours.

Ukraine: Europe clearly overtakes US, with total commitments now twice as large

Related Stories