• Skua@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    And I’m saying that Europe is already doing that. Europe is not the backup because most of Ukraine’s aid is coming from Europe. America is a very large contributor and therefore important, and it has the biggest military industry to turn towards production, but to say that Europe “needs to stop playing poor and open their very dusty checkbooks” when Europe is already significantly outspending Ukraine’s other supporters only makes sense if you’ve just never looked at the actual numbers

    I didn’t side-step the bit about individual domestic military spending commitments because I’m not looking to argue that part. 10 European NATO nations are meeting it this year. The others should do what they said they’d do, but it wouldn’t actually help Ukraine unless we’re all sending actual troops in.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      They should just pledge and give the shortfall and then everyone’s happy.

      I get you don’t want to discuss that because its a problem with regard to your thesis. Just because Europe is giving more comparitively, doesn’t conflict with the reality that they are still not meeting their NATO funding commitments on the basis of 2%/GDP.

      Now maybe the US or at least the US government doesn’t really care about that anr chalk it up to a cost of doing business as the world’s policeman and dominant hegemonic actor, but let’s not get in a pissing match or dick-measuring contest about who’s ponying up more when certain parties aren’t even meeting the baseline level of that which they freely and voluntarily commited to (even if thats on the part of EU as a bloc as opposed to individual members)

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        let’s not get in a pissing match or dick-measuring contest about who’s ponying up more

        literally your entire presence in this thread is dick-measuring about how europe isn’t doing enough

        I get you don’t want to discuss that because its a problem with regard to your thesis

        No, it isn’t. My point is that Europe is giving more to Ukraine and that while the European NATO members should meet the 2% commitment, doing so would not actually help Ukraine. If you want to have a general discussion about Europe’s defence capacity then sure, have fun somewhere, but I had figured that since you commented on an article you were commenting about the article

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Well, I think thats a bit disingenuous. I am commenting more about how ridiculously beholden the viabillity of this entire effort (supporting Ukraine’s war defense) seems to be on the participation of the US (in terms of financial backing) and its vulnerabillity to the US’ internal political machinations when Europe should be underwriting and guranteeing this for the most part and anything the US provides should probably seen more as the “sprinkles” or a cherry on top.

          Zelensky has certainly portrayed it as such (US blocking more funding == existential threat to Ukraine), and I’m not criticizing him for putting on that show because ultimately I think it will help in many ways but I sincerly hope their troops (to the extent they are in any way aware of what is happening on the larger world-level) are advised that they are going to be fine and morale is not affected by the soap opera aspect to all of this

          Edit: its so goddamn sad the West needs a damn fairtyale to entertain ourselves sufficiently for us to drop $1/€ in the hat😤