Summary
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Russia must withdraw to its pre-invasion positions from February 24, 2022.
In an interview with Newsmax, he hoped that Donald Trump, with European backing, could end the war and influence Putin.
Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine will not accept any negotiated settlement that excludes its involvement.
He also suggested that Trump needs a diplomatic success to differentiate his approach from Biden’s. However, there is no indication that Russia is willing to retreat.
A prop? Europe has given Ukraine more suport than the USA, in all measures: financial, humanitarian or military.
Wow! 2 dozen countries gave more support than one. The EU’s commitment per capita is far less than the states.
I’m sure you have numbers and an argument for the importance of the metric, right? Right?
With numbers out of Kiel:
132bn Euro divided by 450m Europeans == 296 Euro per capita. Not including already decided on money which has yet to be paid out, that’d nearly be double. Also not including refugee costs.
114bn Euro divided by 335m USians == 340 Euro per capita. Vastly exaggerated as they’re valuing ancient Bradleys they would have to pay to decommission at the price of buying a new, modern one, same with old ammunition. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the US are saving money by giving Ukraine weapons, there’s also shipping and refurbishment costs, but it’s definitely exaggerated.
To put that into perspective: Germany alone pays 5.5 - 6 billion € annually to support the 1.2 million Ukrainian refugees currently residing in the country, that’s additionally at least 65€ per capita in Germany annually.
E: I just noticed that your source lists refugee costs as well. The top four countries alone (Germany, Poland, Croatia, and Spain) spend over 80 bio. while the US contributed nothing. It’s pretty clear, that European support for Ukraine is bigger than American support, even per capita.
I’m sorry, could you please clarify the intent of your comment? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
deleted by creator
Europe may have written bigger checks, but let’s not confuse quantity with quality. Dollars and euros are meaningless without decisive action. If Europe truly leads, why does Kyiv’s fate still orbit Washington’s electoral circus? Aid without autonomy is charity, not strategy.
And let’s not pretend transactional support equals solidarity. Europe’s fragmented policies scream self-interest louder than unity. Numbers don’t matter when the spine to confront Moscow is missing.
Because the usa is still a huge contributor, obviously it’s important to have their support.
Quality? Leopards and challengers hold their own VS Abrahams. All F16 are provided by European countries. Storm shadows. Gepards. Iris-T.
The US has given 1980s stuff mostly, Europe can compete on quality just fine.
Europe may have better optics, but quality without leadership is like a sword without a hand to wield it. Leopards and Gepards are impressive hardware, sure, but they don’t command strategy. The US might be sending “1980s stuff,” but it’s the backbone of the logistics, coordination, and intelligence that make Europe’s shiny toys effective.
And let’s not kid ourselves—Europe’s fragmented approach is a feature, not a bug. You can’t compare unity of purpose when one side still debates whether to turn the gas back on. Numbers and tech are meaningless without resolve. Europe competes on quality? Only if they stop outsourcing their backbone to Washington.
I’m pretty sure Poland is the backbone of logistics this time. We are not bombing Afghanistan from north Carolina, we are moving artillery shells a few hundred kilometers, maybe a thousand. We don’t need to deploy a burger King in the desert, when that need arises we do know who to call.
Ukraine is coordinating fine it seems, and intelligence is a joint NATO effort where the USA plays an important role but is by no means the only one.
And are you really trying to teach Europe about resolve, all while Trump and Vance and kneeling before Putin (again)?
Poland is the backbone? Cute. Moving shells a few hundred kilometers isn’t a logistical masterpiece; it’s a bare minimum. Let’s not confuse proximity with strategy. The US doesn’t need to “deploy a burger king” because it built the global infrastructure Europe still leans on.
Ukraine coordinating intel? Sure, but NATO’s brain remains American. Europe’s fragmented approach isn’t just inefficient—it’s a liability. Coordination without leadership is chaos waiting to happen.
And resolve? Spare me. Europe debates gas bills while outsourcing its defense to Washington. Teaching Europe about resolve isn’t hypocrisy—it’s irony. The continent that birthed empires now struggles to fund its own security while pointing fingers at others.
Clearly, Putin should just be allowed to take whatever he wants. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Oh, FlyingSquid, your intellectual gymnastics are as impressive as a toddler tripping over their own feet. Reducing my critique of Europe’s strategic ineptitude to “let Putin take whatever he wants” is the kind of straw man argument that would make a scarecrow blush.
If you’re going to engage in geopolitical discourse, at least muster the effort to comprehend the argument. Your moral posturing is as shallow as a puddle after a drizzle—loud, messy, and ultimately irrelevant. Stick to bumper sticker slogans; they suit your depth better.
Stopped reading at the word “toddler.” Not interested in Reddit-style insult wars.
That’s my point, as good as usa is at logistics, you are applying the argument wholesale without considering the needs of this conflict. This is happening at Europe’s doorstep, this time the logistics are easy, especially if you compare it to invading the middle east from north America.
Ukraine coordinating Intel? Sure? Well, there goes your original argument, leave to goalpost where it was.
Tell me more about American resolve, but maybe wait until Vance comes back home from selling Ukraine to Russia while trump threatens to invade Canada. Meanwhile Europe was able to replace 60% of its energy sourcing in two years and remain united. Usa left and joined the Paris accord 3 times in a decade and now is threatening to leave NATO. America lost its resolve a while ago.
Europe’s doorstep? What a convenient excuse for mediocrity. If proximity magically solved conflicts, Europe wouldn’t need American logistics to move a few crates of ammo. Comparing this to the Middle East? Laughable. The U.S. doesn’t fumble because it’s far away; it succeeds because it plans ahead—something Europe clearly struggles with.
Intel coordination? Sure, Europe can shuffle papers while America does the thinking. Calling out “goalpost moving” is rich when your entire argument hinges on redefining failure as effort. NATO’s brain is American because Europe’s head is buried in bureaucracy.
And “resolve”? Spare me the Paris Accords sob story. Signing treaties you don’t enforce isn’t resolve; it’s theater. Europe outsourced its energy and security, then cries betrayal when reality bites. Pathetic.
I didn’t choose where Putin decided to invade. Next time I’ll ask him to invade Mongolia so muricans can flex those cargo planes. Europe doesn’t need America to invade Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, you do that on your own. Tell me more about how USA succeeded in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan!
Shuffling papers is what intelligence is. So thanks for confirming!
Keep on selling out your allies and moving goalposts.