Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickff | Hacker News Reader

But Europe isn’t really supporting Ukraine, they’re just providing enough supplies to keep them in the fight. No state seems willing to provide enough assistance to allow for Ukrainian victory, because of the costs and risks associated with that aid. Even countries at little risk of reprisal from Russia are reluctant to do much at all.

As such, all of us doing nothing more than “voicing support” on the internet and some far-away rally, should offer our empathy, and not presume to tell them how much we’re “helping”.

View on HN

> But Europe isn’t really supporting Ukraine, they’re just providing enough supplies to keep them in the fight

What is your definition of "supporting", if "providing support" doesn't count?

Ukraine recieves 80B EUR in aid each year from various international partners. There is plenty of support.

You can learn more from a German, independent, non-profit research institute (Kiel) here: https://www.kielinstitut.de/research/topics/war-against-ukra...

Europe is divided by propaganda and the situation is quite volatile at the moment. Some European countries do support Ukraine more than others..

A lot of European countries (especially those closest to Russia) are doing a fuckton relative to their economies.

The US is the despicable laggard, even when accounting for our distance from the action.

(And especially when accounting for the fact we promised them our protection of their sovereignty)

None of the European countries are doing much relative to their economies. Russia's GDP is about the same as Italy's. The rest of the EU and NATO countries together have an economy that is enormously larger than Russia's. So why do they allow Russia to push them around?

Here are the aid allocations to Ukraine as a share of GDP of the top contributors (all approximate from 2022 through to 2026):

Denmark: 3%

Estonia: 3%

Lithuania: 2.5%

Norway: 2.5%

Latvia: 2%

Sweden: 2%

Finland: 1.5%

...

UK [†]: 0.75%

...

United States [†]: 0.5%

[†]: These countries signed an agreement that they would protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

For context, the US's entire national defense budget is about 3% of our GDP. Or alternatively, Medicare is 3% of our GDP.

This statement is false: "None of the European countries are doing much relative to their economies."

Ya, that's basically nothing. None of those European countries have asked their citizens to sacrifice. The welfare state continues uninterrupted. They were still buying Russian fossil fuels instead of telling people to put on a sweater.

As a US citizen I think that our country should also do more to assist Ukraine. But fundamentally this is a European problem. They need to find a solution instead of expecting the US to bail them out again.

If 3% of GDP is basically nothing (US defense budget or Medicare), then why isn’t the expectation that the US puts in “basically nothing” (3%) as a token gesture towards its promise to guarantee their sovereignty?

Again, I think the US should do more but it's really not our problem. We never guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty. If you're referring to the Budapest Memorandum, it contains no such promise.

The other states under the US nuclear umbrella find no comfort in the legalesing the difference between "a guarantee" and "an assurance."

If we want nuclear proliferation, breaking our promises is the way to do it.

The idea that a marauding steppe warlord succeeding in Ukraine and taking control of by far the most advanced and experienced near-peer military on the planet, with aspirations to advance further into Europe, is "not our problem" is laughable.

Ukraine was never under the US nuclear umbrella. Where are you getting these crazy ideas?

"Nuclear umbrella" is not a well-defined term. It is the set of promises the US made to non-nuclear states. It made a set of guarantees to some set of nations (e.g. NATO++), and a set of assurances to other states, like Ukraine.

Our reneging on our assurances indicates weakness in our guarantees, which risks a proliferation spiral.

For example, NATO's Article 5 can be legalesed the same exact way you're trying to legalese the Budapest Memorandum.

Budapest Memorandum:

> The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

NATO Article 5:

> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Both agreements promise assistance. Do you think the US's view that your position of "not our problem" qualifies as assistance under the Budapest memorandum, but that somehow "not our problem" would not qualify as assistance under Article 5?

I'm curious for your opinion, though it doesn't matter much. The reality is that all of this is destroying the umbrella and its civilization-protecting purpose: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/19/nuclear-proliferation-defens...

What a weird non sequitur. Unlike the North Atlantic Treaty which established NATO, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 was explicitly not a mutual defense treaty (or even a treaty at all). It merely required the USA to bring violations to the UN Security Council, which we did in 2022. Promises made, promises kept.

Again, in a legalistic sense, sure.

But again, in a legalistic sense, even NATO Article 5 also doesn't obligate the US to do anything.

No document (Budapest memoranda or NATO treaty) can require the US to do anything, so all that matters is whether the US is signaling itself as a country that defends its partners.

If you believe that Article 5 obligates the US to do anything more than what we've done so far in Ukraine, please explain why.

If you don't believe that Article 5 does that, then I'm not sure why you seem dismissive of the idea that we're creating conditions for a nuclear proliferation spiral.

If you don't understand the basics of how NATO operates then I really can't help you. All of the signatories clearly understand that it's a mutual defense treaty, requiring more than just diplomatic or economic assistance. Which is why the US threatened to withdraw from the treaty after repeated failures of many other members to meet their defense spending targets while freeloading on US security guarantees. If the US government didn't believe that the North Atlantic Treaty obligated us to do anything then they wouldn't have bothered to threaten to withdraw in the first place.

You should go listen to some international law experts talk about it. No, Article 5 does not obligate the US to more than "assistance." We can send them a dollar and call it done.

"All of the signatories clearly understand..." just like all of the signatories of Budapest understood that it meant that each side would prevent each other side from invading Ukraine.

Good luck getting anyone else to give up their nukes, now that the world has seen what the US is made of. We, yourself included, are less safe because of Trump's treachery.

The Trump administration has made numerous foreign policy errors but when it comes to nuclear proliferation there is plenty of blame to go around. The Budapest Memorandum was signed under the Clinton administration, and it specifically didn't require the USA to defend Ukraine. Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and the Obama administration didn't do much about it (and other EU/NATO countries also did effectively nothing). Russia then re-invaded Ukraine in 2022 and the Biden administration provided a little support but still the Ukrainians were largely left to fend for themselves. I'd like to see the Trump administration do more (short of direct military involvement) but still this is primarily a European issue. Why have the other European countries been so lazy and passive instead of asking their citizens to accept the risks and sacrifices necessary to defeat Russian aggression?

We'll probably see more nuclear proliferation going forward, regardless of who sits in the White House. No way to stop it now.

Ukraine is provided with tech, weapons intelligence, and all kinds of equipment. You are spewing nonsense.

>No state seems willing to provide enough assistance to allow for Ukrainian victory

Because Putin will never back down, by definition a Ukrainian "victory" would require the fall of Russia. Which would likely require a world war.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com