Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy blasted his European allies Thursday for what he portrayed as the continent’s slow, fragmented and inadequate response to Russia’s invasion nearly four years ago and its continued international aggression.
Addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Zelenskyy listed a litany of grievances and criticisms of Europe that he said have left Ukraine at the mercy of Russian President Vladimir Putin amid an ongoing U.S. push for a peace settlement.
It’s infuriating that in any way the West stumbles is always a win in Putin’s eyes.
I dunno what he’s talking about there are alot more rich western and russian military industrial companies and a lot more dead Ukranians. He’s accomplished a lot!
"A year has passed. And nothing has changed. We are still in a situation where I must say the same words again,” Zelenskyy said.
True and false at the same time. Taken separately, a lot of things have changed. Dozens of prototypes have become experimental products and are being used. E.g. factory A opened, factory B got furnished and is doing test production, factory C is being built, with the understanding that it will give production in 2027. That helps, if you know “I will get a shiny new thingy in 2027”, you can donate your old thingy in 2026 (but the old thingy could be obsolete already).
But he’s right about attitudes. Attitudes in many offices are complacent. Things are not taken seriously, people are stuck in their routine and helpless.
I would like to deny, but I’ve had a chance to observe first hand. An office which you’d expect to respond to queries fast, responded slower than moss grows. An office which you’d expect to be constructive and help find a way to legally reserve airspace kept playing table tennis with applications until threatened with civil disobedience. Conditions for a project competition which you’d hope to accommodate agile development turned out to be a bureaucratic jumble in which you can’t even sign an application due to severe limitations. I’ve heard credible stories of drone developers in Eastern Europe driving hundreds of kilometers to Ukraine to test (or testing illegally) because at home, things are overregulated. It’s a recipe for falling behind.
On the grand scale, politicians are also relatively passive and not very resourceful. It was sad to watch the situation involving frozen Russian funds. There was a way to help and intervene effectively, but politicians were too risk-averse to use it.
And he is not wrong. European support can be adequately described as Too little too late
US support was too little too late. Biden was a failure across the board.
You’re not wrong, but it wasn’t just him. It was a group effort.
That is true. Everyone was letting Biden take the lead, somehow thinking he knew what he was doing though.
Europe has a lot of talk.
Without Europe Ukraine would have already fallen.
Europe is playing the role the US did for a long time in WW2 with the Transatlantic convoys. Supplies.
What Ukraine is asking for is a full blown conflict between Europe and Russia. I think it’s right to try to avoid that.
Europe just loves to shit talk the US at every opportunity, yet consistently underfunds their share of NATO. This is a European conflict yet all European leaders do is talk. Of course their defense spending is woefully small, they just rely on the US military to secure their interests.
Don’t look to the US to lead everything and then also complain about the US leading everything.
You clearly don’t understand how hypocritical this is. We coerced Europe into being this way. It’s only in the last 10-15 years or so that we started asking them to contribute more militarily.
Our strategy against the Soviets was for Europe to hold them off while the US brought over an expeditionary force that would push the Soviets back. Europe would provide most of the financial support.
Now some Americans are acting like they ripped us off. Just more backstabbing fake grievance bullshit designed to slander democracies because democracy and pluralism are the enemy now.
From a pure realpolitik point if view, alienating Europe while they’re beginning their next rearmament era is a pretty fucking stupid move. They have three times our population and it wasn’t that long ago that Europe had the strongest militaries in the world. If they reach that point again the US will not be the global hegemon anymore and Americans won’t like that because we’ve benefited from it economically. Though at this point it’s very clear the world is better off with saner hegemony under other countries.
We’ll be falling behind China in science and engineering soon enough too. China, the EU and various middle powers are all making moves to fill the soft power hole left by the current administration. All because dipshit magas only believe in hard power and bullying people like cavemen.
You are not getting the full picture. NATO by design used to exist to keep Europe small militarily under US supervision, because the US wanted to avoid another Nazi-like regime from taking hold in Europe. That was the deal post WW2. The EU doesn’t grow their armies to the point they could reasonably threaten the US, and they provide that necessary protection instead. So the US inherently didn’t want the EU to have too much defense spending, and to follow their lead so they could keep control. And with how weak Europe was after WW2, they could not really refuse nor reject that.
In return, EU specialized in trade and manufacturing, something the US wanted. Hence why they are such big trading partners still. It’s not like the US was just snoozing at the wheel for more than two decades as defense spending went down. There was always caution (and honestly, the EU shouldn’t have ignored this) that more defense was going to be needed, but the status quo was always by mutual consent, as the US also benefited from essentially it’s own continent wide production factory while it could do what it does best at home (it’s military). And until Russia invaded Ukraine, nobody could even begin to sell the idea of more defense spending to the people, as that would too have increased prices for the US. And the US could have escalated if more defense spending was a dealbreaker to them, but they did not until Trump, because it would have just been a bad change without the hindsight of 2021.
Frankly, this notion that the EU took advantage of the US is really just MAGA propaganda. The same way Trump is now making the despicable claim that EU soldiers didn’t die enough for when the US, the single country that ever invoked NATO’s article 5, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. When the US under Trump realized they could just not uphold their part of the system in place, as Trump does not understand diplomacy and soft power, that’s what he did, and defense spending was just the easy excuse if you ignore all that historical context.
deleted by creator
Jeez, who pulled you out of /r/thedonald’s casket? Are they reassigning people to haunt Lemmy now?
Tankies are unsurprisingly regurgitating the same talking points as MAGA fascists. They are all on the same team.
They aren’t wrong though - the USSR got somewhere around $100-150B from Lend Lease. Ukraine has gotten something like $300B already.
But it’s certainly not money laundering. Wars cost a lot in the modern age. The real question is why are countries giving so much but only to keep Ukraine from losing.
It’s embarrassing for Russia that this war is now longer than their war against Germany in WWII but it’s also sort of embarrassing for Ukraine’s allies.
EDIT: I was estimating in today’s dollars, from Wikipedia - A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $690 billion in 2024 when accounting for inflation) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[3] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to other Allies.
The USSR also got a second front. Western allies were also fighting Germany, even if they could have easily stayed out of it. The EU knows some of their members are next on the Russian menu, and still they refuse to fight for their survival.
I honestly think the EU can only win by helping Ukraine. Russia and the US see the EU as weak abd indecisive, which is why they think they can take advantage of it. If the EU shows itself to be strong and a major power in its own right, they’re likely to back off. Both Putin and Trump only respect strength and force, and Ukraine is the best opportunity for the EU to show that.
On top of that, they’ll gain a valuable ally with the most effective and creative army in the world.
There is too much to win for the EU, and nothing to lose. Just end this war by liberating Ukraine.
While I wholeheartedly agree, war is always a loss. And I think Russia is treading carefully knowing exactly what the West will allow. (And manipulating their biggest obstacle.)
You’re absolutely right. War costs everybody. That money would be better spent to improve people’s lives instead of destroying it. But when someone attacks you, not defending yourself may end up costing more. And helping (and gaining) an ally is better than losing them.
But more than that: the EU showing its strength can discourage further aggression from Russia. And maybe the US.
Your whole framing is suspect, not to mention you’re talking finances and you can’t even figure out that $150 B (EDIT: as written in the post, when I posted this I didn’t check that the nominal figure really was) in 1944 dollars is closer to $2,800 B in 2025 dollars.
$11.3 B in 1944 dollars is equal to $207 B in 2025 dollars.
It was in today’s dollars. See my edit. And I don’t think it is suspect to ask Ukraine’s allies to do more to help them actually win when Zelensky is saying it himself ad nauseam.
What does a win for Ukraine look like to you? Just wondering.
And btw, from an outsider perspective it’s funny and cringe to see the attacks on your comment. I’m afraid those commenters don’t have wherewithal to be as embarrassed as they should be, but it’s a good point, that Ukraine has gotten a lot more outside funding (about $380 bn) than the USSR did to defeat Germany in WWII (about $250 bn in today’s $). I hadn’t noticed that.
Edit: the commenter above (Skiluros) made up the $2.8tn figure by applying inflation to a commenter above saying that the USSR had received less money through lend-lease than Ukraine has since the invasion by Russia. This figure Is wrong because the original commenter was already discussing inflation-adjusted figures, and they refuse to correct the mistake.
According to Wikipedia’s article on lend-lease, the USSR got $11.3bn, which today would roughly be $250bn. It’s higher than what Greg said (which I assumed was taking inflation into account, hence me cheking), but still lower than what Ukraine has gotten (assuming the $300bn is correct, didn’t fact check that).
I wasn’t refusing to correct the mistake, thanks. I just hadn’t checked my replies until now. I have made the edits now to clarify.
I have no clue around the exact sum provided to the USSR (although I have read about the nature of the support and what it focused on). I am just pointing you can’t compare dollars in a nominal manner.
money hasn’t changed in 80 years!
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!
Tell me you don’t understand how inflation works without telling me you don’t understand how inflation works
Tell me you don’t understand geopolitical strategy around an expansionist nuclear state works without telling me you don’t understand how geopolitical strategy around an expansionist nuclear state works
Tell me you have a reductive and naive view of history and current events without telling me you have a reductive and naive view of history and current events
Though your snippy reply maybe doesn’t deserve it, respectfully- the figures I quoted were in today’s dollars. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed people would know that though.
deleted by creator
I don’t think we want to change the mind of someone who is willing to give up the lives of Ukrainians because is it too expensive to help them fight the fascist empire trying to wipe them out.
that would be Ukrainians.
edit imagine downvoting the fact that Ukrainians don’t want to be genocided and then thinking you’re anti-imperial.
deleted by creator
That’s just plain wrong. The allies fought the axis on multiple fronts. If that’s not support, then I don’t know what is.
The allies did try to hurt the ussr every way possible too though. Hitler’s rise was only possible because the fear of the commies that hitler hated.
The russians at one point were fighting in 17 fronts with the largest army ever assembled it is said.
They had one front. The 17 fronts were subdivisions of that one front. That’s like saying that Hitler fought on 7 fronts because he had 4 Heeresgruppen in the east.
It was not just in ww2 they were at war constantly from their founding. Civil wars with the whites, abbritish invasion half assed though it was at archangel in conjunction with them. Not sure if japanese were still contesting the far east after they wiped out the russian fleet and sent their army packing in the tsar days in the 00’s.
The west sponsored a lot of civil strife and helped invasions to prove communism does not work.
The results of which made it more likely the worst sort of military leader would take over, as it did with stalin. It totally worked, for capital. More afraid of reform than absolute rulers, let alone all that seizing the means of production talk.
Anyway when the US got involved, we helped them enough to not collapse, but let them both wear each other out while we leisurely took egypt, sicily, italy, then finally d day.
Congrats Bill Murray, your comedy movie has transcended pop culture.
I wish the EU would get off the pot and destroy Russia already. It is a dagger pointed at their backside, just waiting for an open conflict to erupt between the US and the EU. Getting rid of Russia would go a long way towards safeguarding democracy and human decency.
Plus, the EU can invest into Ukraine. They have excellent resources, and truly blooded soldiers with expertise in modern warfare. Having them teach the EU how to fight sooner than later would be invaluable if the US attacks the EU.
Be it humanitarian or pragmatic, there is no downside in the EU doing the right thing.
Europe could definitely do more, but I don’t think a brute force removal of the current russian elite is feasible without huge loss of life.
Since apparently these days you could just fly into a capital and kidnap a president after a few months of training, simulation and bribery maybe they could do something like that for Putin and the main Russian oligarchs. Clear out the trash in one go and avoid war. But I think this is also too optimistic.
Timidity is a good way to lose control over a situation - be it at a personal or national level. The longer that the EU drags their feet, the harder things will become when the choice to take action is no longer possible.
One way or another, the EU should do more. Support Ukraine directly, declare war on Putin, call in Agent 47. The important thing, is that inaction inherently lends itself to allowing someone more assertive to take control. That someone shouldn’t be Putin nor Trump.
Have you heard about a guy named Napoleon and also Hitler? History can be interesting. You don’t just “get rid of Russia” and also that statement is a little ambiguous. Are you talking government overthrow? Mass genocide? The former takes time and latter is not an option in our global world.
You clearly haven’t watched nearly enough Kings and Generals, listened to Behind the Bastards, nor read The Cartoon History of the Universe. Leaders and nations change all the time, be it by death, conquest, reform, or revolution. It happens a ton, we just occupy a slim frame of observable time within our lifespans.
Historians would someday be writing about all sorts of details that aren’t visible to us right now.
True, I don’t argue any of that.
I wish the EU would get off the pot and destroy Russia already.
You mean the regime and the mobsters aiming to abolish all restrictions on their wealth.
There’s zero shot that the US attacks Europe I refuse to believe in that timeline
That was my thinking back in 2016. I was astonished when I woke up to the news because how could he be elected in favour of her? It makes no sense.
The U.S. has a history of fucking around even among “allies” to them so I fully believe that they could invade us.
If we invaded Greenland, that would be tantamount to an attack on Europe. Pretty decent chance of that happening at some point the way things are going.
China is far more likely to do something about Russia than the EU is.
I wouldn’t be surprised if China takes a bite out of Russia. It would be a way to look like a ‘good and tough guy’, and would avoid the risks that comes with trying to take Taiwan. Right now, Russia is in no shape to defend their eastern flank.
Personally I think it is more likely for China to attack Taiwan, but the Russian option is certainly there if Xi gets cold feet.
It’s far easier on multiple fronts for China to just buy their way in Russia. They are already doing that around Africa. They just need to buy (or more likely bribe) their way in with infrastructure projects, promise of jobs and wealth and so on to local governments. When they have permission they can then just build whatever they want, bring in chinese workers and transport materials and/or profits back home. No need for complicated politics, military or anything like that. Just a fun little tweak on western capitalism model.
there is no downside in the EU doing the right thing
I feel like that’s a really easy thing to say if one ignores that Europe has lived through two world wars and many of the people who fought them are still alive.
No. Your position is what gave Nazi Germany the opportunity to do all the things it did. Russia is kidnapping Ukranian children, sending drones into EU territory, sabotaging infrastructure with their shadow fleet, manipulating American elections, and more.
Russia is an enemy of the EU, and should be taken care of. Delaying what must be done, will only ensure that Russia and Dogey America can work together to spitroast European nations.
Totally, man.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Destroying a country is “the right thing”? Homey you’re part of the problem.
The destruction of Nazi Germany is a good thing. Same goes for Imperial Japan, and the American Confederacy. The Russia we have today sucks, and should be taken out. The people of Russia certainly aren’t benefiting from their leadership, and sometimes an forceful change by external powers is the better way out of a bad situation.
As an American, I am expecting a 2nd American Civil War. I would like outside nations to align against Dogey America, be it by pen or sword. What is good for the goose, is also good for the gander.
What about Israel? Should it be “destroyed” as well?
Considering that they engage in genocide, I would say so.
YES
deleted by creator
Now you’re being willfully ignorant. He’s made clear his meaning, definitions, and point. If you still refuse to interpret it in the way he clearly intended, that’s your problem.
Marshall Plans are essential for replacing a bad nation with a better one. Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and much of the EU were put on a much better path because of them.
In my nation, Reconstruction was halted early. Aside from limiting the power of surviving members of the confederacy, a continued Reconstruction would have allowed people of good character to leave a greater mark on Southern society. The building of a better nation, is crucial for rehabilitating a broken one.
With all due respect, you might want to improve your English reading comprehension before participating in English-language political arguments.
nazi simp. ewwwwww
I hardly think it’s “humanitarian” to “get rid of/destroy Russia” or any other country full of innocent people just living their lives, simply because their leaders are fucking the world over (and I’m not just saying because as an American, I can relate). Regime change? Sure, absolutely, let’s try it. Talking about the whole nation as if they were an infestation with no real purpose other than the eradication of “human decency”? Those are literal, almost verbatim, Nazi talking points my friend. Please be better than that, I know you can
It depends on what is meant by “destroy”. I interpret it as “destroy in its current form”, not “erase from the map”.
Destroy in the way that Nazi Germany was destroyed, or the British Empire was destroyed. The people and places still exist, but are structured differently.
Not in the way that Palestine is being destroyed now where there is literally bare emptiness where the people were.
Zelensky isn’t wrong, but even peacekeeping missions are extremely politically unpopular in Western Europe right now.
The French left is basically saying “it’s not our issue, we shouldn’t get involved”. The far right say the same. The incumbents are barely hanging on to their remaining political capital
For a peacekeeping mission, there has to be a peace to keep.
He’s asking for combat troops.
Far rights became Putin’s mouthpiece in most countries.
Helping Ukraine is a duty of the free world, because we can’t afford losing more allies after we lost US.
Zelensky isn’t wrong, but even peacekeeping missions are extremely politically unpopular in Western Europe right now.
This is why I’m not bullish on the notion of a collective European defense. I’m sure it will happen, but how hamstrung will it be with politics?
I’m not bullish on a collective European defence because Europe thinks it’s a spending and rearmament problem, when in fact it’s a logistics and coordination one.
You have a battalion in Spain that you’d need to deploy to Latvia. How do you airlift? Which country has airlifting capabilities, etc.
Very true. People think American military hegemony is about fancy tech and nukes. Really it’s about being able to firehose materiel at an enemy until our populace feels bad about it.
Unless Mélenchon changed his tuned again, last I heard, he was only against loans. Helping, yes, but no strings attached.
I don’t know about Mélenchon but years after the fact I still read a lot of similar slander on the Swedish left. They literally were just in disagreement about how weapons exports should be made possible without breaking existing Swedish legislation, and the issue was addressed in 24 hours, but people still bring up that incident as “the Swedish far left blocked help for Ukraine”.
Wasn’t aware of this, fair then
Watch out for that first step. It’s a doozy!
Ned Ryerson!
I feel bad for him
He hasn’t realized he’s just a tool yet?
Who chose this picture 😅
Thats actually so true.
He’s not wrong.
Can’t crush Russias regime, though. One has to keep an eye on Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Some of these ICBMs might actually be able to fly.
And one must be careful to not generate a disbalance of power between opposing (or even neighboring) countries or Gaza happens all over again. Because the stronger one can. It’s only human. :( - already some people in France are looking anxiously towards Germany’s military buildup.
Still. The argument that you need to have means to steer things your way is correct - military, economically, diplomatic. If you can make the additional expenses and budget cuts look advantageous to the general public.
The US is dead set against Ukraine now. They just cannot directly repudiate the alliance now, the admin needs the military on their side.
They even want to blow up nato, trying to use greenland to do so, but apparently found the patriotic fervor of expansion could not overcome our fraternity with europe, yet.
The president is compromized by both russia and israel, and in alliance with them. Both have hoardes of kompromat on politicians and swells it is not limited to the president
It really is true, I am surprised how so many could not see it
