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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 130 points 9 months ago (40 children)

And he is not wrong. European support can be adequately described as Too little too late

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Without Europe Ukraine would have already fallen.

    Europe is playing the role the US did for a long time in WW2 with the Transatlantic convoys. Supplies.

    What Ukraine is asking for is a full blown conflict between Europe and Russia. I think it's right to try to avoid that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    US support was too little too late. Biden was a failure across the board.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago*

    You clearly don't understand how hypocritical this is. We coerced Europe into being this way. It's only in the last 10-15 years or so that we started asking them to contribute more militarily.

    Our strategy against the Soviets was for Europe to hold them off while the US brought over an expeditionary force that would push the Soviets back. Europe would provide most of the financial support.

    Now some Americans are acting like they ripped us off. Just more backstabbing fake grievance bullshit designed to slander democracies because democracy and pluralism are the enemy now.

    From a pure realpolitik point if view, alienating Europe while they're beginning their next rearmament era is a pretty fucking stupid move. They have three times our population and it wasn't that long ago that Europe had the strongest militaries in the world. If they reach that point again the US will not be the global hegemon anymore and Americans won't like that because we've benefited from it economically. Though at this point it's very clear the world is better off with saner hegemony under other countries.

    We'll be falling behind China in science and engineering soon enough too. China, the EU and various middle powers are all making moves to fill the soft power hole left by the current administration. All because dipshit magas only believe in hard power and bullying people like cavemen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    You are not getting the full picture. NATO by design used to exist to keep Europe small militarily under US supervision, because the US wanted to avoid another Nazi-like regime from taking hold in Europe. That was the deal post WW2. The EU doesn't grow their armies to the point they could reasonably threaten the US, and they provide that necessary protection instead. So the US inherently didn't want the EU to have too much defense spending, and to follow their lead so they could keep control. And with how weak Europe was after WW2, they could not really refuse nor reject that.

    In return, EU specialized in trade and manufacturing, something the US wanted. Hence why they are such big trading partners still. It's not like the US was just snoozing at the wheel for more than two decades as defense spending went down. There was always caution (and honestly, the EU shouldn't have ignored this) that more defense was going to be needed, but the status quo was always by mutual consent, as the US also benefited from essentially it's own continent wide production factory while it could do what it does best at home (it's military). And until Russia invaded Ukraine, nobody could even begin to sell the idea of more defense spending to the people, as that would too have increased prices for the US. And the US could have escalated if more defense spending was a dealbreaker to them, but they did not until Trump, because it would have just been a bad change without the hindsight of 2021.

    Frankly, this notion that the EU took advantage of the US is really just MAGA propaganda. The same way Trump is now making the despicable claim that EU soldiers didn't die enough for when the US, the single country that ever invoked NATO's article 5, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. When the US under Trump realized they could just not uphold their part of the system in place, as Trump does not understand diplomacy and soft power, that's what he did, and defense spending was just the easy excuse if you ignore all that historical context.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -45 points 9 months ago* (32 children)
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago (31 children)

    Jeez, who pulled you out of /r/thedonald's casket? Are they reassigning people to haunt Lemmy now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 9 months ago (28 children)

    Tankies are unsurprisingly regurgitating the same talking points as MAGA fascists. They are all on the same team.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (27 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (21 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    That would be nice, but what about the Minsk agreements? Just ignore them? Could they even be implemented at this stage?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Not really sure. Not an expert but it seems like Russia already trashed them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Fair enough. Most people with that opinion don't know about them, or about Ukraine in general or their civil war at all. Just going back to 2013 borders wouldn't solve anything, especially considering the number of Ukrainians that defected to the Russian side. It would just be an even more divided country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago* (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    How do you think I got the $2800 B figure?

    The whole framing is dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    Ah, you're a tankie who supports russian genocidal imperialism.

    No, wonder you're being so holier than thou.

    Bye!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    This is such a weird response. You are really making yourself look bad here. Why can't you just accept that you inflation adjusted a number that had already been inflation adjusted? It's an easy mistake to make and not a big deal but instead you are coming back with this bizarre non sequitur ad hominem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -21 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)