Trump is in talks with Russia to end the war

[Oldcarpy2]

We have ponied up:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countri...to-ukraine

"The U.S. has committed 0.55% of its GDP toward Ukraine aid, which falls below the percentages committed by Germany (1.31%), the U.K. (0.93%) and Canada (0.67%)."

Don't believe Trump's lies.

[quintessentone]

Yeah, America is aware of what the concept is/was, but we just can't foot the bill, without a realistic timeframe and a coherent plan beyond we ae going to outspend Russia. 

One has to ask why UK and Europe waited so long to pony up, instead of just saying screw it let America do it. 

One reason is that usually militarily it works better if everything is of one plan including logistics, I hope the UK/EU Ukraine emerges completely victorious 

After 20-plus years in Iraq and Afghanistan America's military needs to regroup and reassess its priorities, China is still there and is a legitimate concern. We need to rebuild our stockpiles

Considering the U.S. contributed to Ukraine's losing their 'cards' (i.e. nuclear arms) you owe it to them, in my estimation.

[putnam6]

Didn't Trump just make a trade deal with Putin for aluminum? What is ridiculous and completely unhinged is ignoring the obvious.

Anything Trump does with Putin is to get him to sit down and talk peace and end this useless war if that takes a proposed aluminum deal it takes a proposed aluminum deal, that can modified or dropped altogether at a later date

[quintessentone]

Anything Trump does with Putin is to get him to sit down and talk peace and end this useless war if that takes a proposed aluminum deal it takes a proposed aluminum deal, that can modified or dropped altogether at a later date

Trump wants to keep Ukraine in the weak position, is how I see it. That will most likely change very quickly after today's summit.

Edit to add:

Historically, Ukraine had nuclear weapons from 1922 onwards where Russia did not attack them, after Ukraine gave up those weapons in 1994 in a good will gesture to Russia as a security measure, Russia then annexed/invaded Crimea which was Ukraine's territory in 2014.

[putnam6]

Considering the U.S. contributed to Ukraine's losing their 'cards' (i.e. nuclear arms) you owe it to them, in my estimation.

Contemporaneous to this question NOBODY wanted Ukraine to have nukes under thier responsibility, a responsibility that is more strict than the NATO requirements they still don't meet

Adding nukes to this situation with the emotional maturity of Ukraine and Russia it would be glowing already.

Hell Zelensky wanted Article 5 over an errant missile that unfortunately hit a Polish farmer FFS. 

Besides, if Ukraine had kept the nukes they would have stripped half of them for parts, components, and elements and sold them on the black market

Au contraie mon frere
After 100 billion and pretty much orchestrating Zelensky into office America owes Ukraine nothing, zip, nada, nyet

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024...n-war.html

• Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)
• Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved—the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well—viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill—named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar—to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided “a minimum” of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.
• Finally, Yeltsin forgave Ukraine mountains of debt for oil and gas that Russia had supplied, and Clinton promised to persuade the International Monetary Fund and the G7 nations to pay Ukraine’s energy imports into the future. At a meeting with Clinton, according to a memorandum of their conversation, Kravchuk said, “When we have stabilization of our currency and private investment for Ukraine, then everyone will understand that the agreement signed by the three presidents [to remove nuclear weapons from Ukraine] was the only possible step.” At a meeting with both Clinton and Yeltsin two days later, Kravchuk said, “There is no alternative to nuclear disarmament.”

[quintessentone]

Contemporaneous to this question NOBODY wanted Ukraine to have nukes under thier responsibility, a responsibility that is more strict than the NATO requirements they still don't meet

Adding nukes to this situation with the emotional maturity of Ukraine and Russia it would be glowing already.

Hell Zelensky wanted Article 5 over an errant missile that unfortunately hit a Polish farmer FFS. 

Besides, if Ukraine had kept the nukes they would have stripped half of them for parts, components, and elements and sold them on the black market

After 100 billion and pretty much orchestrating Zelensky into office America owes Ukraine nothing, zip, nada, nyet

Ha ha Ukraine had nukes since 1922-1994 without incident. Putin's Russia has goals that need to be realized. ...and North Korea and Russia are responsible having nukes? Didn't Putin recently threaten using nukes?

Let's get real, the only way to stave off war is to have a strong nuclear armament as a deterrent.

[putnam6]

Ha ha Ukraine had nukes since 1922-1994 without incident. Putin's Russia has goals that need to be realized. ...and North Korea and Russia are responsible having nukes? Didn't Putin recently threaten using nukes?

Let's get real, the only way to stave off war is to have a strong nuclear armament as a deterrent.

HA HA "1922" you are wrong there and wrong about the mood of Ukrainian nuke missiles situation contemporaneous to the events 


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024...n-war.html

• Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the nearly 1,700 Soviet nuclear weapons on its soil, many of them on intercontinental ballistic missiles that were nearing the end of their service lives. (My own reporting from several years ago, not reflected in these documents, indicates that Moscow retained command and control over the ICBMs, though Ukrainian officers could have fired the shorter-range nuclear missiles on their soil.)
• Kravchuk and almost all Ukrainian politicians were eager to dispose of the weapons, fearing that their nuclear cores might melt down in a manner reminiscent of the Chernobyl power-plant disaster, which had occurred in Ukraine just eight years earlier. Everyone involved—the presidents, the diplomats who spent months negotiating the precise terms, and British officials, who later signed the deal as well—viewed it as mainly a measure to promote nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The U.S. Senate had recently passed a bill—named for its sponsors, Democrat Sam Nunn and Republican Richard Lugar—to pay for the cleanup and dismantlement of nuclear weapons throughout the former Soviet Union. (The deal signed in January 1994 provided “a minimum” of $175 million to Ukraine for this purpose.) Also, the U.S. and Russia were negotiating the SALT II arms-control treaty, which would require the elimination of the SS-19 and SS-24 ICBMs inside Ukraine.
• Finally, Yeltsin forgave Ukraine mountains of debt for oil and gas that Russia had supplied, and Clinton promised to persuade the International Monetary Fund and the G7 nations to pay Ukraine’s energy imports into the future. At a meeting with Clinton, according to a memorandum of their conversation, Kravchuk said, “When we have stabilization of our currency and private investment for Ukraine, then everyone will understand that the agreement signed by the three presidents [to remove nuclear weapons from Ukraine] was the only possible step.” At a meeting with both Clinton and Yeltsin two days later, Kravchuk said, “There is no alternative to nuclear disarmament.”

[guyfriday]

I'm sorry but what?

Nobody had nukes back in 1922, and Ukraine wasn't anything other than a territory from 1922 till the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

[putnam6]

We have ponied up:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countri...to-ukraine

"The U.S. has committed 0.55% of its GDP toward Ukraine aid, which falls below the percentages committed by Germany (1.31%), the U.K. (0.93%) and Canada (0.67%)."

Don't believe Trump's lies.

So if America has a larger GDP we have to pay more numerically when America isn't threatened one GD iota by Russia?

LOL complete and utter rubbish

Do you go to the pub and insist the wealthiest friend pay 60-70% of the tab every day every night for decades and then call him an azz when they say I don't want to do it that way anymore.

FTN

[guyfriday]

So if America has a larger GDP we have to pay more numerically when America isn't threatened one GD iota by Russia?

LOL complete and utter rubbish

Do you go to the pub and insist the wealthiest friend pay 60-70% of the tab every day every night for decades and then call him an azz when they say I don't want to do it that way anymore.

FTN

Good point, numbers matter when used correctly. From the article linked:

Global aid to Ukraine since 2022 has reached a staggering 400 billion euros committed as of December 2024, or about $430 billion, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. The group is trying to keep up with all of the commitments in its Ukraine Support Tracker, which keeps tabs on government-to-government transfers of military, financial and humanitarian aid into Ukraine. The Germany-based institute also tracks allocations, which it defines as aid earmarked and/or specified for delivery in the near term.
 
The majority of committed support by country has come from the United States, whose total aid commitment is valued at about $128 billion. The U.S. is followed by the United Kingdom and Germany for highest commitments overall. The European Union as a whole has committed approximately $124 billion in aid to Ukraine.

So, in the end the US is giving Ukraine more than the EU is as a whole. People shouldn't get blindsided by creative statistics. Good job Putnam6 for calling that out.