• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

European leaders unite behind Ukraine following Trump-Zelenskyy confrontation

No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.

The truth is that the U.S. has spent $182 billion on Ukraine, which is $44 billion more than the EU.
But are you counting as contributions those munitions that were close to going stale and needed to be replaced anyway?
 
If NATO doesn't back Trump, then Trump will likely pull out of NATO and it will be more than tariffs they face.

I suspect they feel Trump pulling out of NATO is pretty much a done deal.
 
No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.

The truth is that the U.S. has spent $182 billion on Ukraine, which is $44 billion more than the EU.

Trump's just throwing it all away as he capitulates to Putin.
 
No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.

The truth is that the U.S. has spent $182 billion on Ukraine, which is $44 billion more than the EU.

Sort of and maybe, however, there is much left out.

By one estimate, if you adjust for the latest commitments and disbursements reported up to March 1, 2025, a reasonable estimate for total European aid (EU institutions, EU member states, and other European countries like the UK) consists of:
  • EU and member state aid of ~$145 billion (EEAS, February 2025),
  • Additional UK and other non-EU European contributions (~$16 billion+),
  • Partial disbursements of the $50 billion G7 loan package, though not fully realized by this date.
This total reflects aid directly supporting Ukraine, including military equipment (e.g., $62 billion from Europe per Kiel), financial support (e.g., $70 billion), and humanitarian/refugee assistance (e.g., $18 billion+ for refugees in Europe).

What it does not reflect is the difference between "appropriations" for aid VS actual disbursements. Another analysis says:

  • U.S.: Appropriated $128–183 billion, disbursed $70–75 billion.
  • EU + Other European States: Appropriated $180–185 billion, disbursed $100–110 billion.Europe leads in total commitments and disbursements, driven by financial and humanitarian support, while the U.S. dominates military aid delivery. Europe’s broader coalition and its future-oriented packages contrasting the U.S.’s more immediate, military-focused aid. These figures are dynamic, and exact disbursements may shift as more data emerges in 2025.
Without quibbling, it appears that Europe (EU, UK, others in Europe) has promised as much and disbursed more to Ukraine.
 
No, I don't have TDS, but I guess you have to say shit like that to cover for the fact that you support a felon who lied his way into the presidency and you fell for it like a naive teenager.
Your last verse is always the same as the first. You'll still be whining tomorrow and it won't change a damn thing. Trump will still be my president.
 
And your article uses data from the Kiel Institute not the DoD. And the Kiel Institute even used a shorter period of time. Sounds like they cherry picked data.

View attachment 67558622

The discrapancies for Kiel institute and DOD are easy to explain. It is not the time, it is not the deliveries but methedologies to count:

1) US DOD counts all operations relating deliviries and support aka salaries, logistics, donation size even if from stockpile in monetary terms etc etc
2) Kiel institute only counts deliveries to Ukraine of equipment.

So reality is that both numbers are correct but because of different methodologies. Just pure deliviries of equipment either from stockpile or somewhere else in monetary value: 120 Billion. If you add all salaries and infrastructure and logistics that went in to it then 182 billion. Kiel obviously has no way to measure the US salaries and all the other internal stuff that goes in the US industry and military.
 
Regarding NATO, to withdraw, Trump would need congressional consent. It's not his decision.
 
The discrapancies for Kiel institute and DOD are easy to explain. It is not the time, it is not the deliveries but methedologies to count:

1) US DOD counts all operations relating deliviries and support aka salaries, logistics, donation size even if from stockpile in monetary terms etc etc
2) Kiel institute only counts deliveries to Ukraine of equipment.

So reality is that both numbers are correct but because of different methodologies. Just pure deliviries of equipment either from stockpile or somewhere else in monetary value: 120 Billion. If you add all salaries and infrastructure and logistics that went in to it then 182 billion. Kiel obviously has no way to measure the US salaries and all the other internal stuff that goes in the US industry and military.
So we can agree that the US has spent in excess of $180 billion in support of Ukraine. Thanks.
 
Yet those quotes of yours clearly mention multiple times; other country's "pathetic" militaries and the Ukraine.

My problem seems to be one of you calling me a liar when it is you doing the tap dancing.

The fact is; on multiple occasions you have condescendingly implied the Ukraine cannot win this war without U.S. support.
So you think that if it mentions something at all you can use it to imply anything you want even if that was not in the actual context. That’s a pretty dishonest take. Bit no surprise from you.
 
No they haven’t. And then you will quote Hamish’s numbers which conveniently split the U.S. contribution into two categories.
That's because they ARE two categories.

We donated X dollars in old stocks at Y value, as determined by date of purchase and expected end of shelf life. The restock is of course more costly, but isn't going to Ukraine.

What isn't brought up, and something you of all people should know, is that disposing of expired weapons is even more costly than the replacement of the weapons.

IOW, that $44 Bn is less than the cost of destroying and replacing weapons that went past their shelf life. We would have had to pay that out regardless, and more of it, even if we never sent a single bullet to Ukraine.
 
NATO would like for you to pay your fair share. Canada is not doing their part.
As a % of GDP we've contributed more than the US to Ukraine.
 
So we can agree that the US has spent in excess of $180 billion in support of Ukraine. Thanks.

Not really. Only 120 billion got really delivered and majority of it was from stockpiles in monetary value while the rest was spent on internal US production to renew its forces.

So basically on paper 120 billion was delivered majority of which was stockpiles that were going to be decommissioned eventually. US actually produced and delivered I would say 50% of that number or probably less because you need to account for maintenance before delivery.

All in all its a bit hard to say actually. Depends on what your opinion is on the matter. 185 vs 120 that 65-70 billion difference would be payed probably anyways at least the large chunk of it to keep the perosnal busy or the contractors busy to do other things. Plus the 120 billion out of which 50% lets say are stockpiles and only other 50% is actually produced (hard to say here) plus the maintanence fees that would be anyways spent minus the decomission fees that would be also spent eventually.

I don't know. Majority of that 185 Billion went to US industry and US workers either in the miltiary or contractors.
 
That's because they ARE two categories.

We donated X dollars in old stocks at Y value, as determined by date of purchase and expected end of shelf life. The restock is of course more costly, but isn't going to Ukraine.

What isn't brought up, and something you of all people should know, is that disposing of expired weapons is even more costly than the replacement of the weapons.

IOW, that $44 Bn is less than the cost of destroying and replacing weapons that went past their shelf life. We would have had to pay that out regardless, and more of it, even if we never sent a single bullet to Ukraine.

By large majority that 185 billion or 120 billion went in to US industry, contractors or military. What does large majority mean, hard to say since nobody is gonna realease the full numbers but it is probably around 70-90% depending on what you count here. For example, do you count shells ordered in US factories and delivered to Ukraine in to that number? (Since US had a shortage at some point) And that is basically the major item in question. As much as I understand, even Patriot missiles delivered were from stockpiles and US didn't really run out of them.

There were some other items on the list that US stockpiles were low and had to be produced like Stingers and Javelins but 155 shells take the cake.
 
We do not need NATO to support Israel. Trump his first term brought peace to the region.

You just said you are done getting involved in to wars and now you back peddle something about NATO not being needed for Israel? I mean you are trying to jump through some interesting hoops here.
 
Europe has donated more than the US.

No they haven't, and they certainly haven't donated the vast majority, even though they have the vast majority of threat.
 
Regarding NATO, to withdraw, Trump would need congressional consent. It's not his decision.

I had to look the above up because it didn't seem like it was correct so I checked with Grok/X

No, Donald Trump, as President of the United States, would not need explicit permission from another authority to initiate the process of withdrawing from NATO. The U.S. Constitution grants the president significant authority over foreign affairs, including the power to negotiate and terminate treaties as part of the executive branch's role. NATO, formally established by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, includes a withdrawal provision in Article 13, which states that any member country can leave by providing one year's notice to the U.S. government, which serves as the treaty's depositary. As president, Trump would have the unilateral ability to issue this notice.
However, there are practical and political considerations. While the president can legally act without Congressional approval to withdraw, doing so might face significant pushback from Congress, allies, and the public. Congress could attempt to resist through legislation, funding restrictions, or resolutions, but it lacks a clear constitutional mechanism to outright block a withdrawal if the president insists. Historical precedent—like the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in treaty termination disputes (e.g., Goldwater v. Carter in 1979 over the Taiwan treaty)—suggests courts would likely treat this as a political question, leaving it to the executive branch.
In short: legally, no permission is required, but politically, it’s a different story. Trump could start the process on his own, but the fallout would depend on how others respond.
 
Back
Top Bottom