One thing that the site makes clear is that the vast bulk of the military aid budget has come from the US. The majority of the (large) EU figure is in the form of "financial aid" but I'm not quite sure what that consists of.
Financial aid keeps the Ukrainian economy functional - it pays pensions, salaries for government staff etc. Without that aid the Ukrainian government and military would collapse, it allows war to be fought. Without that aid there'd be no one to use weapons supplied under the military aid budget, and it means that when Ukraine expels the invaders the nation would be able to relatively rapidly step back into the international community as a functioning economy. Don't discount this aid, it's as vital as sending guns and shells.
One thing that the site makes clear is that the vast bulk of the military aid budget has come from the US. The majority of the (large) EU figure is in the form of "financial aid" but I'm not quite sure what that consists of.
Are we looking at the same data? (Link to the raw data that the chart is based on.) What I see is that the U.S. has provided Ukraine with US$46.33 billion in military aid, EU member countries have provided US$48.36 billion in military aid on a bilateral basis, and the EU as an organization has provided $6.14 billion in military aid. Additionally, non-EU countries in Europe (mostly Norway and the U.K.) have contributed $14.69 billion in military aid. While the U.S. is the largest single contributor of military aid to Ukraine, I don't think 39% counts as "the vast bulk" in this case.
Yes you are right @Crœsos . I should have looked at the chart more carefully - the slicing up of the non-US military aid over the multiple donor countries makes it look smaller than it really is.
What surprised me was that the EU (as an organization) was able to contribute more than US$6 billion in military aid. That's a pretty impressive sum for an organization that doesn't even have its own military. According to the files that's mostly for fuel and protective gear, but there was also US$1 billion in there for the purchase of 155 mm artillery shells.
Ironically all the EU's military aid to Ukraine is channeled through something called the "European Peace Facility".
There's long been a theory of "peace through superior firepower". In Europe it goes back at least as far as Pax Romana, and there are times when Europeans seem to hark back to the Roman Empire as though it was the height of civilisation to aspire to.
It seems to me that theory probably correlates with the growth of wealth and improvements in technology. At one time, countries could not usually afford to maintain large standing armies (a lot of able-bodied men sitting around contributing little), and if one did, there was an assumption that they intended to start a war. For instance, when England was being invaded repeatedly by Germanic tribes, the defenders (Saxons, Celts, descendants of Romans) would scrape up their army by drafting farmers. Desertion was a major problem as the farmers needed to get home and take care of their stock. (This is a major factor in "The Battle of Maldon".) As nations have grown wealthier, standing armies became more practical.
For many, many years the idea of a 'standing army' in Britain was generally seen as a Bad Thing. There was a fear it could be used to enforce absolutism. We only started to have one with the Commonwealth, and, for many years afterwards, it was kept deliberately small. The Napoleonic Wars caused a big expansion, but after Boney's defeat, the army shrank again and was mainly in the business of maintaining colonial garrisons.
Britain traditionally relied on the Royal Navy to keep nasty foreigners at bay. Now, with air and missile power so important, we are no longer secure in our 'island fortress'. The truth is that we rely heavily on our alliances. We don't even have the ships to protect our massive aircraft carriers properly without the help of allies.
With the asymmetrical war you don't need a large standing army. Just the capacity for making plenty of drones, and likely AI controlled robots in a few years. In someways Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World have come to pass. The Russians may be winning now, but at great cost of men and material. I have said it more than once, but I will say it again. When the Russian mothers have had enough, they will end the war in spite of Putin.
It seems to me that theory probably correlates with the growth of wealth and improvements in technology. At one time, countries could not usually afford to maintain large standing armies (a lot of able-bodied men sitting around contributing little), and if one did, there was an assumption that they intended to start a war. For instance, when England was being invaded repeatedly by Germanic tribes, the defenders (Saxons, Celts, descendants of Romans) would scrape up their army by drafting farmers. Desertion was a major problem as the farmers needed to get home and take care of their stock. (This is a major factor in "The Battle of Maldon".) As nations have grown wealthier, standing armies became more practical.
Ahem ... the Battle of Maldon was between the Anglo-Saxons and the Norsemen. It had nothing to do with the Celtic inhabitants of these islands or the descendants of Romano-Britons.
The seasonal thing applied to all armies at that time, the Anglo-Saxon 'fryd' as much as to whatever war-bands the Celtic peoples were able to muster.
Mind you, if 'The Gododdin' is to believed the warriors from the area around what is now Edinburgh spent two years feasting and boozing before heading down to 'Catraeth' (Catterick) for their fatal encounter with the Anglo-Saxons.
With the asymmetrical war you don't need a large standing army. Just the capacity for making plenty of drones, and likely AI controlled robots in a few years. In someways Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World have come to pass. The Russians may be winning now, but at great cost of men and material. I have said it more than once, but I will say it again. When the Russian mothers have had enough, they will end the war in spite of Putin.
How? From inside the Gulag Archipelago? Will thugs with Полиция (POLITSIYA) on their coats get tired of beating and banging them up? Did they end the war in Afghanistan? Or Chechnya? But you have spoken, yeah twice if not thrice or even quarce, @Gramps49, so it shall come to pass. Russia has ten times the economy and four times the population and has a fifth of Ukraine and holding. What makes Russian mothers special? Unique in human history? The saddest song I know is Sting's 'They Dance Alone'.
The protests from mothers and wives of soldiers sent to Afghanistan is generally credited with being a significant factor in the end to the Soviet occupation.
The protests from mothers and wives of soldiers sent to Afghanistan is generally credited with being a significant factor in the end to the Soviet occupation.
The protests from mothers and wives of soldiers sent to Afghanistan is generally credited with being a significant factor in the end to the Soviet occupation.
Possibly true, but the USSR under Gorbachev was significantly more tolerant of dissent than Putin's neo-imperial Russia, and the Soviet leadership already wanted out.
The protests from mothers and wives of soldiers sent to Afghanistan is generally credited with being a significant factor in the end to the Soviet occupation.
Possibly true, but the USSR under Gorbachev was significantly more tolerant of dissent than Putin's neo-imperial Russia, and the Soviet leadership already wanted out.
True, the circumstances are quite different. I'd also add in that Soviet news media at the time was much more honest in reporting the progress of the war in Afghanistan - though there's little that can be done to hide that a son or husband isn't coming home, or is coming home badly injured, from his family.
I was mainly addressing the question "Did they end the war in Afghanistan?", and the answer from most historians is that they made a significant difference in ending the war sooner.
And American military aid looks greater by twice as much than everyone else's combined. The EU per se military aid is negligible. Europe needs to triple its military aid.
Maybe the EU should have the ability to tax its individual citizens? Then raise a European army?
And American military aid looks greater by twice as much than everyone else's combined. The EU per se military aid is negligible. Europe needs to triple its military aid.
Maybe the EU should have the ability to tax its individual citizens? Then raise a European army?
Well I'd be all for that but it would be totally unnecessary in this case. If European countries were serious about opposing Russia the money would be found in a twinkling; I imagine largely through borrowing.
And on the subject of seriousness, why has Macron been left high and dry by allies? Even if NATO is dubious about putting troops on the ground it seems to me important not to make that public. Why encourage Putin to think that it'll never happen?
Why encourage Putin to think that it'll never happen?
You want to make it clear to Putin that there is no existential threat to Russia, because if he thinks there is an existential threat to Russia he has no reason not to resort to nuclear weapons.
And on the subject of seriousness, why has Macron been left high and dry by allies? Even if NATO is dubious about putting troops on the ground it seems to me important not to make that public. Why encourage Putin to think that it'll never happen?
I'm glad Macron is sticking to his guns.
What @Dafyd said, and it will never happen, as Macron knows, unless Putin uses nuclear weapons on Ukraine, which he won't. Because as Jens Stoltenberg said a year ago, NATO would destroy Russian forces (in Ukraine at most, hopefully...) in 3 days.
What @Dafyd said, and it will never happen, as Macron knows, unless Putin uses nuclear weapons on Ukraine, which he won't. Because as Jens Stoltenberg said a year ago, NATO would destroy Russian forces (in Ukraine at most, hopefully...) in 3 days.
Although this looks suspiciously like Putin's original claim that Russia would take Kyiv in 3 days. In light of Russia's experience I think any claims of a swift victory by either side should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Nato's tanks, infantry and aircraft are also vulnerable to mines, drones, SAMs etc. Though to be fair I doubt NATO still has vast stocks of tanks last manufactured in 1959 to shore up any losses in more modern equuipment.
What @Dafyd said, and it will never happen, as Macron knows, unless Putin uses nuclear weapons on Ukraine, which he won't. Because as Jens Stoltenberg said a year ago, NATO would destroy Russian forces (in Ukraine at most, hopefully...) in 3 days.
Although this looks suspiciously like Putin's original claim that Russia would take Kyiv in 3 days. In light of Russia's experience I think any claims of a swift victory by either side should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Nato's tanks, infantry and aircraft are also vulnerable to mines, drones, SAMs etc. Though to be fair I doubt NATO still has vast stocks of tanks last manufactured in 1959 to shore up any losses in more modern equuipment.
NATO air power is formidable. Including airborne. No frontal assault is necessary. And as for minefields, they will have all the MICLIC they need simultaneous to air, airborne, naval and amphibious attack. And NATO knows how to do combined arms. There is no comparison.
I am astonished at your uncharacteristic optimism @Martin54 . Sure NATO has the resources to do this. But does it have the will to do this? Putin thinks NO, I am sure! And getting all "oooh, don't frighten the horses" when Macron does so much as suggest that ground troops might not be unthinkable under all circumstances just encourages him to think that NATO lacks this will!
As for "existential threat means nukes", this is something Putin says to (very successfully) frighten people. He can define "existential threat to Russia" however he likes to suit his purposes. I'm sure he would happily say that the continued existence of Ukraine as a state is an existential threat to Russia, because he thinks Ukraine is intrinsically a part of Russia.
I am astonished at your uncharacteristic optimism @Martin54 . Sure NATO has the resources to do this. But does it have the will to do this? Putin thinks NO, I am sure! And getting all "oooh, don't frighten the horses" when Macron does so much as suggest that ground troops might not be unthinkable under all circumstances just encourages him to think that NATO lacks this will!
As for "existential threat means nukes", this is something Putin says to (very successfully) frighten people. He can define "existential threat to Russia" however he likes to suit his purposes. I'm sure he would happily say that the continued existence of Ukraine as a state is an existential threat to Russia, because he thinks Ukraine is intrinsically a part of Russia.
That's what NATO will do, up until January next year, if Putin nukes Ukraine. So he won't until Trump's in. And then why would he? He's got 20%. NATO has no remit to deploy forces beyond its border, even if Russia rolls up to it.
FWIW, I came into contact with a member of The Regiment*, who was being deployed to Ukraine last summer. He couldn't tell me what he would be doing - obviously - but he said he knew he was going to Ukraine. He nodded ascent to the suggestion that it would be a training role but maybe that's what he was supposed to say.
It is very common for Special Forces to be in all sorts of places. With the obvious strategic interest to both the UK and France it would be a massive shock if there weren't some such forces in theatre.
NATO air power is formidable. Including airborne. No frontal assault is necessary. And as for minefields, they will have all the MICLIC they need simultaneous to air, airborne, naval and amphibious attack. And NATO knows how to do combined arms. There is no comparison.
What makes you think NATO would do this if Putin nuked Ukraine?
Because that's what the BBC reported Jens Stoltenberg saying from the end of September 2022, as I doubtless falsely recall.
"To give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a NATO – a collective effort – that would take out every Russian conventional force that we could see and identify in the Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.
"It's not nuclear for nuclear – you don't want to get into a nuclear escalation here, but you have to show that this can't be accepted in any way."
David Petraeus former CIA director and retired army general. Oct. 2nd 2022.
European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell also warned Putin not to cross that threshold. “Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated,” he said in a speech in Bruges, Belgium.
@Martin54 your memory is faultless (I think) on this occasion - indeed that is what NATO say they would do! But do you think NATO really in fact would do so? If there is no will to provoke Putin by deploying ground troops now, surely there would be even less to do so after he had shown himself capable of pushing the nuclear button?
@Martin54 your memory is faultless (I think) on this occasion - indeed that is what NATO say they would do! But do you think NATO really in fact would do so? If there is no will to provoke Putin by deploying ground troops now, surely there would be even less to do so after he had shown himself capable of pushing the nuclear button?
Most kind @TurquoiseTastic. We'd have to. Or learn Russian. A single tactical nuke on Ukraine, unanswered, is capitulation. European civilization, the world's only hope, is over.
There is more discussion about using seized Russian assets, estimated to be around, $262 billion, to fund the Ukrainians in their response to the invasion. Traditionally, once a nation changes its course, the seized assets are returned to the country. One work around is to use the assets to buy Ukrainian war bonds.
Personally, I would think this is poetic justice.
BTW, did you see a video of a Russian Defense System toppling over?
I don't think Russia will settle for the land they currently hold though. The "logic" of Putin's position suggests that he cannot accept the continued existence of Ukraine; it must be absorbed into Russia. A continuation of that "logic" would suggest that the Baltics must also be absorbed - perhaps the Caucasus too? Then there is Poland - and Finland? So I agree with the second half of Telford's post.
I don't think Russia will settle for the land they currently hold though. The "logic" of Putin's position suggests that he cannot accept the continued existence of Ukraine; it must be absorbed into Russia. A continuation of that "logic" would suggest that the Baltics must also be absorbed - perhaps the Caucasus too? Then there is Poland - and Finland? So I agree with the second half of Telford's post.
It all depends on January. If Trump wins, he stops the war one way or another. By an armistice. Or by making Ukraine impregnable. If Biden wins by a miracle, Europe will have to step up ammunition supplies by a factor of five, to cover the House delays. And in the meantime Ukraine will have to buy 155s from everybody it can, who I can't imagine, with European money. South Korea? Taiwan? Australia? Israel?
I don't think Trump has much interest in stopping the war. Stopping US contributions to it, maybe. I think he'd be pleased to see Putin win but not so much as to actually do much about it. So I think European contributions will have to increase whoever ends up US President in January.
The obvious place I imagine buying arms from is the US. The US might or might not be prepared to provide weapons as aid, but if they're paid for I think they will be happy to supply.
He must know that it is not in America's interests for Europe to become 'non-aligned'. He can admire Putin all he likes, as an adversary, as a power monger, but he cannot let him win. He has some enlightened self interest. Witness his support for IVF in Alabama. He can make far more money for America if Putin is kept in check by Ukraine mortgaging itself for ammunition, as I've frequently suggested. Zelensky should propose that to Biden (why he doesn't I don't know). Who should accept. Because the business of America is business. And America can gear up for that no problem. That's why Gorbachev folded. And what Yamato knew after his failure in Hawaii.
Why? Why would he go back on what he said about his dies mirabilis (miracle day)? Why would he want to act against America's national self interest?
He would if he felt it was more in his self-interest. Or just from sheer laziness or stupidity.
How could the isolation of America be in his self interest? And I was going to stare you down, but I can't be arsed. Hmmm. Maybe I don't know why? Wednesday.
Trump's question would be "Can I make money or gain personal power by isolating America?" And if the answer is yes, that's what he'll do. The whole 'America First' schtick, with which Trump is associated, his questioning of the value of NATO, and indeed suggesting that withdrawing from it is an option, all points to him considering it to be in his interests.
I see your Typhoon and raise you aircraft carriers with no aircraft and Apex APCs which are so badly designed that soldiers travelling in them spew up, as well as being millions over budget and behind time.
I think we are in an era where defensive weaponry is cheaper and easier to employ than the corresponding offensive weapons, so Russia defending its gains might be a much harder nut to crack than Russia trying to move forward against stiff opposition. So in spite of the ease with which the US obliterated Saddam Hussein's forces, I'm not convinced that NATO would be Russia, especially a Russia in defence, quite so straightly.
Comments
That makes no sense at all Martin. It is the military aid that ought to increase.
Ohhhhhhh!!!!
Are we looking at the same data? (Link to the raw data that the chart is based on.) What I see is that the U.S. has provided Ukraine with US$46.33 billion in military aid, EU member countries have provided US$48.36 billion in military aid on a bilateral basis, and the EU as an organization has provided $6.14 billion in military aid. Additionally, non-EU countries in Europe (mostly Norway and the U.K.) have contributed $14.69 billion in military aid. While the U.S. is the largest single contributor of military aid to Ukraine, I don't think 39% counts as "the vast bulk" in this case.
Ironically all the EU's military aid to Ukraine is channeled through something called the "European Peace Facility".
Britain traditionally relied on the Royal Navy to keep nasty foreigners at bay. Now, with air and missile power so important, we are no longer secure in our 'island fortress'. The truth is that we rely heavily on our alliances. We don't even have the ships to protect our massive aircraft carriers properly without the help of allies.
Ahem ... the Battle of Maldon was between the Anglo-Saxons and the Norsemen. It had nothing to do with the Celtic inhabitants of these islands or the descendants of Romano-Britons.
The seasonal thing applied to all armies at that time, the Anglo-Saxon 'fryd' as much as to whatever war-bands the Celtic peoples were able to muster.
Mind you, if 'The Gododdin' is to believed the warriors from the area around what is now Edinburgh spent two years feasting and boozing before heading down to 'Catraeth' (Catterick) for their fatal encounter with the Anglo-Saxons.
Hardly surprising they lost if that was the case.
How? From inside the Gulag Archipelago? Will thugs with Полиция (POLITSIYA) on their coats get tired of beating and banging them up? Did they end the war in Afghanistan? Or Chechnya? But you have spoken, yeah twice if not thrice or even quarce, @Gramps49, so it shall come to pass. Russia has ten times the economy and four times the population and has a fifth of Ukraine and holding. What makes Russian mothers special? Unique in human history? The saddest song I know is Sting's 'They Dance Alone'.
More so than Stingers?
Possibly true, but the USSR under Gorbachev was significantly more tolerant of dissent than Putin's neo-imperial Russia, and the Soviet leadership already wanted out.
I was mainly addressing the question "Did they end the war in Afghanistan?", and the answer from most historians is that they made a significant difference in ending the war sooner.
Well I'd be all for that but it would be totally unnecessary in this case. If European countries were serious about opposing Russia the money would be found in a twinkling; I imagine largely through borrowing.
I'm glad Macron is sticking to his guns.
What @Dafyd said, and it will never happen, as Macron knows, unless Putin uses nuclear weapons on Ukraine, which he won't. Because as Jens Stoltenberg said a year ago, NATO would destroy Russian forces (in Ukraine at most, hopefully...) in 3 days.
Although this looks suspiciously like Putin's original claim that Russia would take Kyiv in 3 days. In light of Russia's experience I think any claims of a swift victory by either side should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Nato's tanks, infantry and aircraft are also vulnerable to mines, drones, SAMs etc. Though to be fair I doubt NATO still has vast stocks of tanks last manufactured in 1959 to shore up any losses in more modern equuipment.
NATO air power is formidable. Including airborne. No frontal assault is necessary. And as for minefields, they will have all the MICLIC they need simultaneous to air, airborne, naval and amphibious attack. And NATO knows how to do combined arms. There is no comparison.
As for "existential threat means nukes", this is something Putin says to (very successfully) frighten people. He can define "existential threat to Russia" however he likes to suit his purposes. I'm sure he would happily say that the continued existence of Ukraine as a state is an existential threat to Russia, because he thinks Ukraine is intrinsically a part of Russia.
That's what NATO will do, up until January next year, if Putin nukes Ukraine. So he won't until Trump's in. And then why would he? He's got 20%. NATO has no remit to deploy forces beyond its border, even if Russia rolls up to it.
FWIW, I came into contact with a member of The Regiment*, who was being deployed to Ukraine last summer. He couldn't tell me what he would be doing - obviously - but he said he knew he was going to Ukraine. He nodded ascent to the suggestion that it would be a training role but maybe that's what he was supposed to say.
It is very common for Special Forces to be in all sorts of places. With the obvious strategic interest to both the UK and France it would be a massive shock if there weren't some such forces in theatre.
AFZ
*What the SAS likes to call itself.
Would this be the same formidable military whose Trident missiles are such spectacular successes? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395
Because that's what the BBC reported Jens Stoltenberg saying from the end of September 2022, as I doubtless falsely recall.
David Petraeus former CIA director and retired army general. Oct. 2nd 2022.
not 2 weeks later.
This is a year and a half old news.
Most kind @TurquoiseTastic. We'd have to. Or learn Russian. A single tactical nuke on Ukraine, unanswered, is capitulation. European civilization, the world's only hope, is over.
Personally, I would think this is poetic justice.
BTW, did you see a video of a Russian Defense System toppling over?
It all depends on January. If Trump wins, he stops the war one way or another. By an armistice. Or by making Ukraine impregnable. If Biden wins by a miracle, Europe will have to step up ammunition supplies by a factor of five, to cover the House delays. And in the meantime Ukraine will have to buy 155s from everybody it can, who I can't imagine, with European money. South Korea? Taiwan? Australia? Israel?
The obvious place I imagine buying arms from is the US. The US might or might not be prepared to provide weapons as aid, but if they're paid for I think they will be happy to supply.
He would if he felt it was more in his self-interest. Or just from sheer laziness or stupidity.
How could the isolation of America be in his self interest? And I was going to stare you down, but I can't be arsed. Hmmm. Maybe I don't know why? Wednesday.
If you say so @JonahMan.
And I've watched Typhoons flying over Hunstanton and they didn't malfunction like Tridents.
I'm sure one thrust backwards on its tail.
I see your Typhoon and raise you aircraft carriers with no aircraft and Apex APCs which are so badly designed that soldiers travelling in them spew up, as well as being millions over budget and behind time.
I think we are in an era where defensive weaponry is cheaper and easier to employ than the corresponding offensive weapons, so Russia defending its gains might be a much harder nut to crack than Russia trying to move forward against stiff opposition. So in spite of the ease with which the US obliterated Saddam Hussein's forces, I'm not convinced that NATO would be Russia, especially a Russia in defence, quite so straightly.