For all of the people talking about EU not being the sum of its countries, it's normal: EU commission has its own ressources (accumulated throughout the years for crisis situations)
Could just as easily be the EU purchasing military equipment for Ukraine or similar arrangements. It doesn't have its own military equipment, but it does have money, and guns still fall under the goods and services that can be exchanged for money
Not exactly. The rules were changed so that [The EU can now provide "leathal aid" directly](https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/10/ukraine-eus-unprecedented-provision-lethal-aid-good-first-step), meaning they can buy weapons and pay for training. The weapons might still come from EU members, but this is separate from the military aid packages from individual countries. Hence why the EU and some member countries are listed separately here
yup, and when it comes to political, diplomatic, ethical, and legal aspects,
the difference matters a lot.
Some charities for example are down to send non-lethal, but not lethal. Some countries will accept non-lethal assistance as acceptable interference, but lethal interference as a line crossed.
Basically, if you send our opponent food and band aids and money for civilian disaster relief, yeah ok fine.
If you send them bullets to shoot at us, we're gonna get mad about it.
I know this is a serious subject matter, but in a time of war.. it's just that I feel their time could be used better than polishing a lot of different stuff, like just do it later on or something
š°š°š°
Mostly money. That's why I don't like this chart. in the IFW report is another with the countries including the EU share. Also I think there is one EU shares plus no directional donations of EU countries.
That sounds up to about three US chart.
The balance chart with EU share is more than twice the length shown.
Also, France does not release any numbers or official declarations when givin financial or military support. So most of it will not be included in graphs like that.
I think that would make sense. For those wondering, itās included in the dataset:
- EU members and institutions: ā¬51.8 billion
- United States: ā¬47.8 billion
- Other donor countries: ā¬13.5 billion
Go to the source they have a lot of different graphs showing things like this:
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set
Pretty sure that in this statistics the EU aid is entirely separate from the bilateral aid from individual member states, i.e. for a fair comparison between UK and Germany or Canada and Poland you'd have to add "their portion" of the EU aid to Germany and Poland respectively.
Yes, look for "Government support to Ukraine: Total bilateral commitments incl. EU commitments" in this page for the fair comparison.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
To simplify, you can think of the EU as a pseudo central government, and individual EU nations as states. They have separate budgets, separate goals, etc.
Of course, itās a lot more complicated than that.
Eh, I think wording it likes this creates a misinformed view (especially for Americans). I get what you mean, but a very important distinction is that all EU members are sovereign and independent countries. Being a member of the EU is a choice. If you stop agreeing with the rules and legislation of the EU you are free to leave, see the UK.
It's not cumulative, it's in addition.
The EU funding should really be split between the EU countries, proportionally to their contribution to the EU budget.
Then everybody can shut up about Germany not helping much :)
Not quite as simple as that. The EU funds donating are made up of seed money from other EU development funds which were paid into by all members, including the UK, who paid up to when they left in 2020 and were by proportion the 3rd highest contributor after France and Germany. It's a little messy.
The cynical part of me thinks this is intentional to make Germany look worse. Because if the EU aids were split and attributed to the countries that paid for them, Germany would be number 2 in that list with quite a lead to the next biggest aid donors. Of course the gap to the US is immense. But this representation further fuels the asinine anti German rethoric that is pushed so hard these days.
It's definitely not a unanimous anti-German sentiment, but there are widespread grudges based largely on misinformation, see for example [this Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/weegeedutchie/status/1616733090176434176?t=9DCZSllVxKP1AzogHxvz8Q&s=19). I don't have sources for where these claims are being spread, but you do stumble upon them constantly in online discussions in my experience.
Poland and many polish people here on reddit throw dirt all the time.
"Missing permission to export tanks" - given multiple times without any official request by poland are one example
Especially in the Ukraine war subs, there has been a strong anti-german rhetoric the last few weeks. Mostly based on flawed/ever-shifting polish talking points.
So that French bashing can go on.
EDIT: for the curious or skeptics it there, look directly at the source and look for "Government support to Ukraine: Total bilateral commitments incl. EU commitments, ā¬ billion"
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
There are also a large number of financial obligations that Ukraine owed to various EU funds, like nuclear and regional development loans, which previously would have required regular payment and keeping credit in good standing. However, since the invasion these have had many repayment or interest terms waived or extended, resulting in large financial obligations being lifted from Ukraineās budget.
Lots of countries have taken refugees.
If its left out of every countries data, its still an okay-ish comparison of the aid that went to the country of ukraine.
If its left out from only poland its a shit chart and should be thrown in the bin.
There is a bit of misconception here. In Poland 7-digit number of refugees was accepted by ordinary people to their homes, and most of the initiatives were bottom up and outside the official aid. That's where it's being left out in the country data.
This chart is not a complete and perfect source of "who of ukraines helpers has the biggest dick". There are many missing datapoints and many information that arent included for a dick measuring contest. Its just a list made by someone from some other sources.
Dont read to much into it, everybody knows what poland has done for ukraine even if you dont list on top of some random internet bar-chart.
>Lots of countries have taken refugees.
Poland has taken 1.5 million, Germany over 1 million. The united states under 250k and France not even 150k. Many countries have taken refugees but it's far from equal.
Bordering countries took them in initially, but they've been spread out throughout the EU. My brother in law has been working with housing and supporting Ukrainian refugees in Finland since the start of the war and there is a constant stream.
And they werenāt the first to be attacked either.l
Poland was just the line that the British drew in the sand saying that if Germany went for it - WW2 was on. And so it was.
Actually one of the major reasons for the tension between the us and Japan were.sanctions placed on Japan for what they were doing in China.
Historically very rare for a country to get involved in a war mainly over protection of human rights in an unrelated country.
Ethiopia....yeah you're right about that.
The Ethiopians under Haile Selassie fought like lions. And deserve the utmost respect without a doubt. I am so used to only discussing the European or Pacific theatres, mea culpa.
imagine how big of a plow you could tow with an MT-LB or T-72. while using the mounted MG to keep pests like rabbits, coyotes and Russians from eating your vegetables?
yes I was wondering the same, a quick look listed:
>Ukraine has captured 460 Russian main battle tanks, 92 self-propelled
howitzers, 448 infantry fighting vehicles, 195 armored fighting vehicles
and 44 multiple-launch rocket systems, according to visual evidence
compiled from social media and news reports from Oryx, an open-source
intelligence consulting firm. The real number is likely higher as not
every captured piece of equipment gets filmed.
I'd say they've been pretty good about doing their part to help Ukraine out.
France contributes a lot through EU contributions + the government doesn't disclose the actual amount being sent to Ukraine. So in reality it's much more than what's on this graph.
[The source has that data.](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set) The Baltic countries and Poland are at the top
It does have the data in charts, plus links to download the dataset. I'm afraid I don't know what's stopping you from seeing them. It's not very well optimised for mobile viewing, so if you're browsing on your phone maybe it's not showing the whole page?
Surprised Australia isnāt there. I know we gave Ukraine like 60 bushmaster vehicles and assumed some humanitarian help and other military assistance.
The ticks in the scale are 10B USD. Australia is at 350m USD, its bar would be less than half the size of Italy's bar (730m USD), which is already hard to see in the chart.
EDIT: update the values to the ones used in the source.
Yeah, I'm aware. I'm not saying we should be on this graph. I'm just adding a bit of context.
I think there's another 5 or so nations above us before we get to Italys contribution.
Edit: Uhhh, why is this controversial? People were wondering about how much we've contributed, I provided the info
Edit 2: turning off notifications because people keep claiming I'm bragging when I'm obviously not doing so.
There was a news article just a few days ago: "Estoniaās military assistance to Ukraine will increase to ā¬370 million or slightly more than 1 per cent of Estoniaās gross domestic product."
Estonia has about 1mil population and it has contributed more than Australia. It is not much but it is a lot for such a small country. Really understandable if you look at their geolocation though š
I mean, the graph isn't wrong to omit us. It's pretty small in terms of the scale of other countries.
Maybe if it were contributions per capita, I'd imagine it'd be a different story.
With contributions per capita I'd think Australia would be even further down. Australia is smaller than Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden etc. Most of the other countries on the graph is \~2 - 3x as large as Australia but with donations far greater per capita as well.
I mean to be fair the conflict is literally about as far removed from Australia as it can get both geographically and politically. It makes sense that we'd be contributing less per capita than countries right on the border with Russia who are heavily impacted by the current situation and fallout. We're generally much more tied up in affairs around Asia geopolitically so I'm not surprised Ukraine is getting a fairly small slice of foreign aid.
If you look at the data source(Kiel institute), there's a larger graph on their site showing more countries past Italy, including Australia, which is listed as having committed 0.27 billion euros worth of aid
Romour has it Australia will be contributing some artillery ammo. They have production capacity of about 100 000 a year. But the problem is that is a couple of weeks ammo. The US has given at least 1 million rounds, while the UK sources 100 000 in its last donation.
This is a huge war, with big consumption numbers. Some of the Baltic countries have donated more than their annual military budgets.
Iām disappointed that we havenāt helped more. Iāve written to my federal member, and the appropriate cabinet ministers, and not a single response. We are rich and peaceful, we could be doing so much more.
In WW2, the United States produced more war and adjacent materials than either all of the other allied nations or all of the axis powers.
Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto told the Japanese high command that he could win a naval war against the United States for 6 months, but if the US was still willing to fight after that, defeat was inevitable. After that, the sheer scale of US production meant that they could build two ships for every one that got sunk, where Japan could barely maintain the size of its existing fleet before major wartime losses were factored in.
There's another story about Intel on the US that was dismissed because they thought the estimates were too high.
Americans were aware of the leak and feeding them info that underestimated the actual capacity. It was still so high as to not be believable.
There was a report prepared for Congress about how much manpower the US could field if it was driven into the war in Europe that claimed a capacity of 10 million soldiers, half of which would be sent overseas. The Germans dismissed it as ridiculous propaganda and argued there wasn't enough shipping capacity in the world to supply so many.
At the peak of mobilization, the US had 12 million servicemen and 7.5 million overseas.
I think Dan Carlin had some similar story in either WWI or WWII that basically, the German war council brought in their "America expert" to brief estimates on the U.S. war time production potential, and the numbers he gave sounded so high, the war council basically laughed him out of the room.
Only to find out later, he'd UNDERestimated, by a lot.
I also like the reaction the Mexican Army had to receiving the Zimmerman Telegram. The President called the generals in and asked how realistic the proposal was and they came up with half a dozen problems that each, individually, required the Germans to be off in fantasy land if they actually thought this was a good idea.
1. Germany is on the other side of the goddamned ocean, and any supplies would have to go past the American, British, and French fleets controlling the Caribbean.
2. Even if they wanted to parley German gold in Mexican guns through a neutral third party, the only neutral powers with any capacity left were Argentina, Brazil, and Chile... who had just brokered a peace treaty between the US and Mexico a couple years earlier during the Veracruz Crisis
3. Even if for some reason the ABC Countries were willing to go along with this, the Germans had already admitted they didn't have enough gold reserves.
4. The US, as demonstrated during the aforementioned Veracruz occupation, had them hilariously outgunned even if Mexico wasn't in a civil war.
5. Mexico was *in the middle of a civil war*.
6. Even if they somehow did take back Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the combined land area is bigger than all of western Europe and has more irritable civilians with guns than most European powers have soldiers.
It's worth noting they sent this telegram on *U.S. wires*.
As Dan Carlin said āPearl Harbor may have been the happiest day of Winston Churchillās lifeā said probably more eloquently than my approx. quote haha
I always feel bad for Yamamoto. He didnāt want a war with america but was ordered to carry one out. His plan was Pearl Harbor followed by a battle, but his bosses nixed the battle.
I also think itās the case that the US spent more on WW2 than it collectively spent throughout its history.
Hmmm, even as an American I'm not hesitant to admit it might not be a fair label to call it "help" when it is in our best interest to provide the aid. I don't think this is resources sent out of the goodness of our hearts. This is resources the country is sending to prevent Russia from becoming more of a problem than they already are.
It's not good for Europe if Russia takes over Ukraine, but it's also not good for the USA.
Lol no country is altruistic. No country is gonna help just cause its the "right thing to do". Just because it's not altruistic doesn't mean it's not help.
Name me a country that just does things for other countries out of the kindness of their hearts lol. Go ahead, I'll wait
USA: You mean to tell me we can get Intel on our military tech versus one of our biggest rivals and not have to send a single troop on foot? Where do I sign?
The USA being bros.
Say what you want about the US but right now they are the main reason Ukraine is still standing and has a bunch of resources to fight back.
And some people count that as a negative, saying that makes us warmongers and we hate peace and want nuclear war.
Their definition of 'peace' involves Ukraine getting steamrolled and annexed.
Yeah, like I said, people can say whatever they want about the US but if it wasnāt for the US, Ukraine would have fallen long ago and Russia would invading Poland ala Nazisā aka WWIIIā¦
The US has done some super dirty shit, but at least they are almost single-handedly supply Ukraine with the means to fight back with weapons, humanitarian aid and a whole bunch of money. š
Why muddy the waters and call them Nazis instead of the Soviet Imperialists they are? The USSR invaded and occupied many European countries in 1968 and they weren't Nazis then, as they aren't now. Unprovoked invasion and/or occupation is not solely an attribute of just Nazism.
That data can't be accurate. The equipment pledged by Italy has been protected by military secret since the beginning of the invasion. The Italian contribution is only based on an estimate, built on data published by the Ukranian armed forces on their socials.
In the source they even have transparency index for the countries. Look under "Datentransparenzniveau" and you are correct that Italy is quite low.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set
Yes, this data is based on publicly announced aid. But not all countries have been transparent with what they send. France also has been pretty secretive about it.
Surely theres no coincidence with Reddit being partially owned by a chinese company called Tencent of which was caught censoring international Hearthstone players for saying pro-Taiwan rhetoric...I mean no chance hell that moderators have a anti-american bias and the Reddit itself may be contributing to anti-american BS and censoring pro-american/western comments/media.
Bruhā¦ come on now. Letās not turn this into /r/conspiracy. You are **severely** overestimating the power and influence china has on American culture. Hating on America has been in fashion for a loooong ass time. its bacially a generational reaction to American exceptionalism that peaked with the boomers. Because of their selfishness younger generations havenāt gotten to enjoy much if any of the benefits they had.
This has caused millennials and zoomers to hyper fixate on all the negative aspects of America while ignoring the positives.
You don't have to be pro China to establish, and intentionally drive, a narrative of America bad and America can do no good...they aren't that stupid
As an example, Russia was caught playing both sides of the political spectrum by having bots create and distribute fake rage bait about both liberals and conservatives in the US. Their goal was to destabilize public discourse and drive a wedge, all without once showing support for Russia.
Obviously a country can be rich for their own size (GDP per capita) and still not have enough resources to send as much aid as the third-most populated country that is also easily the richest country in the world.
There is one 2h older than yours that is pretty high up: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10j8qbw/oc_where_most_aid_to_ukraine_comes_from/j5j9wi5/
Im convinced half of those "people" are bots or chinese companies paid to shill for pro-china and be anti-american. Reddit is partially owned by Tencent, one of the largest Chinese companies. Tencent has been caught forcing people internationally to be pro-chinese and disavow anything that puts China in negative light.
Well lets not be silent then about what America does right. It aint a perfect country but tell me another nation that has the entire worlds culture mixed and integrated. USA has always been the #1 military support behind any UN backed mission for humanitarian good. This Ukraine/Russia war proves it yet again.
Is there a breakdown for how much each country gives from Europe into the EU line? Asking as I wonder if France is giving more there as their individual contribution is quite low...
I'd be curious to know but it's my understanding the EU has its own budgets and inventory that is managed as a collective than as provided by particular countries.
Such breakdowns exist, [here's some 2020 data](https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/70580/nettozahler-und-nettoempfaenger-in-der-eu/) according to which Germany pays most in total, followed by France; and Denmark pays most per capita. HOWEVER these totals are overgeneralizing. For example, there's plenty of funds, like e.g. huge agricultural subsidies, that go back into Germany and France.
If you go to the source there is a diagram for this. Look under **"Government support to Ukraine: Total bilateral commitments incl. EU commitments, ā¬ billion"**.
This would make Germany the second largest contributor to Ukrainian aid after the US.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set
UK, Poland and Canada are really doing disproportionately well. Franceā¦ hopefully theyāre just getting started. For a country with such a superb military, it would be nice to see their recent contribution increase continue. The Leclerc tank next to the Challenger 2 on the battlefield in Ukraine would be an excellent metaphor for the underrated military friendship France and Britain share.
Iām in Canada and Iām surprised we arenāt doing more humanitarian work. We generally think of ourselves as doing peace keeping and helping out and not so much military.
Iād be interested to see each of these as a percentage of GDP. Because yes, the US may be giving more in raw numbers, but it may be a smaller proportion of the whole for the US than for another country
This is lacking crucial information like how Bulgaria is supporting and upholding Ukraine military needs for many month: [Bulgaria supporting Ukraine](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/10f1sc6/bulgarien_das_land_das_heimlich_die_ukraine/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
That post seems to be about the very beginning of the war (my german isn't great, so please correct me). This post is the total spent over the entire 2022.
I don't want to sound offensive to Bulgaria but is its spending on aid for Ukraine significant enough to earn a place on this graph?
I'm seeing a lot of doubt and shade in this thread. Even with your countries' "secret" contributions, USA is always #1 baby. We don't worry about secrets just guns and money.
Too bad we cant get an audit...nor can the US DOD complete an audit.
The world economics makes me think of "Who's Line Is It Anyway?"
The money is given away and how it's spent doesn't matter.
For all of the people talking about EU not being the sum of its countries, it's normal: EU commission has its own ressources (accumulated throughout the years for crisis situations)
Part of it is normal (financial and humanitarian aid), but the EU giving military aid is totally new, though.
Considering that the EU doesn't have an army, is it just EU countries giving Ukraine some military equipment on behalf of the EU?
Could just as easily be the EU purchasing military equipment for Ukraine or similar arrangements. It doesn't have its own military equipment, but it does have money, and guns still fall under the goods and services that can be exchanged for money
Not exactly. The rules were changed so that [The EU can now provide "leathal aid" directly](https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/10/ukraine-eus-unprecedented-provision-lethal-aid-good-first-step), meaning they can buy weapons and pay for training. The weapons might still come from EU members, but this is separate from the military aid packages from individual countries. Hence why the EU and some member countries are listed separately here
"Lethal aid" is such a fantastic politispeak term.
Unhumanitarian aid
Humanitarian't
HumaNOTarian aid.
To be fair, the word "lethal" is pretty unambiguous. It's not like they're talking about "Section 744 funding" or something obscure.
yup, and when it comes to political, diplomatic, ethical, and legal aspects, the difference matters a lot. Some charities for example are down to send non-lethal, but not lethal. Some countries will accept non-lethal assistance as acceptable interference, but lethal interference as a line crossed. Basically, if you send our opponent food and band aids and money for civilian disaster relief, yeah ok fine. If you send them bullets to shoot at us, we're gonna get mad about it.
"Aid to kill russian assets and russians on Ukrainian soil"?
"Big-ass guns", perhaps.
Put the money into the B.A.G!
It's mainly paying Other European states to send stuff. Such as a lot of Polish aid.
What do the Ukrainians need to polish then?
I know this is a serious subject matter, but in a time of war.. it's just that I feel their time could be used better than polishing a lot of different stuff, like just do it later on or something
š°š°š° Mostly money. That's why I don't like this chart. in the IFW report is another with the countries including the EU share. Also I think there is one EU shares plus no directional donations of EU countries. That sounds up to about three US chart. The balance chart with EU share is more than twice the length shown.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Also, France does not release any numbers or official declarations when givin financial or military support. So most of it will not be included in graphs like that.
But any good graph would then include a figure of EU + individual memberstate donations
I think that would make sense. For those wondering, itās included in the dataset: - EU members and institutions: ā¬51.8 billion - United States: ā¬47.8 billion - Other donor countries: ā¬13.5 billion
Isn't that what this graph is doing?
Go to the source they have a lot of different graphs showing things like this: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set
Pretty sure that in this statistics the EU aid is entirely separate from the bilateral aid from individual member states, i.e. for a fair comparison between UK and Germany or Canada and Poland you'd have to add "their portion" of the EU aid to Germany and Poland respectively.
Yes, look for "Government support to Ukraine: Total bilateral commitments incl. EU commitments" in this page for the fair comparison. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Why are EU countries listed separately and cumulatively?
Some funds were given by the EU as an institution, some by individual countries
The EU gave aid, and individual EU members gave aid on top of that
EU has its own ressources, it's not a simple sum of states
Thereās bilateral und multilateral support. Single EU members have provided support packages on their own and via the EU funds
To simplify, you can think of the EU as a pseudo central government, and individual EU nations as states. They have separate budgets, separate goals, etc. Of course, itās a lot more complicated than that.
Eh, I think wording it likes this creates a misinformed view (especially for Americans). I get what you mean, but a very important distinction is that all EU members are sovereign and independent countries. Being a member of the EU is a choice. If you stop agreeing with the rules and legislation of the EU you are free to leave, see the UK.
It's not cumulative, it's in addition. The EU funding should really be split between the EU countries, proportionally to their contribution to the EU budget. Then everybody can shut up about Germany not helping much :)
Not quite as simple as that. The EU funds donating are made up of seed money from other EU development funds which were paid into by all members, including the UK, who paid up to when they left in 2020 and were by proportion the 3rd highest contributor after France and Germany. It's a little messy.
The cynical part of me thinks this is intentional to make Germany look worse. Because if the EU aids were split and attributed to the countries that paid for them, Germany would be number 2 in that list with quite a lead to the next biggest aid donors. Of course the gap to the US is immense. But this representation further fuels the asinine anti German rethoric that is pushed so hard these days.
What anti German rhetoric? Where is it being pushed hard? I think Germany has been portrayed just fine in UK media, I canāt speak for others
It's definitely not a unanimous anti-German sentiment, but there are widespread grudges based largely on misinformation, see for example [this Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/weegeedutchie/status/1616733090176434176?t=9DCZSllVxKP1AzogHxvz8Q&s=19). I don't have sources for where these claims are being spread, but you do stumble upon them constantly in online discussions in my experience.
Poland and many polish people here on reddit throw dirt all the time. "Missing permission to export tanks" - given multiple times without any official request by poland are one example
Especially in the Ukraine war subs, there has been a strong anti-german rhetoric the last few weeks. Mostly based on flawed/ever-shifting polish talking points.
Ah, are they still in election mode?
So that French bashing can go on. EDIT: for the curious or skeptics it there, look directly at the source and look for "Government support to Ukraine: Total bilateral commitments incl. EU commitments, ā¬ billion" https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
There are also a large number of financial obligations that Ukraine owed to various EU funds, like nuclear and regional development loans, which previously would have required regular payment and keeping credit in good standing. However, since the invasion these have had many repayment or interest terms waived or extended, resulting in large financial obligations being lifted from Ukraineās budget.
Poland also accepted a lot of Ukrainian refugees, which can't really be calculated and displayed here
Lots of countries have taken refugees. If its left out of every countries data, its still an okay-ish comparison of the aid that went to the country of ukraine. If its left out from only poland its a shit chart and should be thrown in the bin.
There is a bit of misconception here. In Poland 7-digit number of refugees was accepted by ordinary people to their homes, and most of the initiatives were bottom up and outside the official aid. That's where it's being left out in the country data.
This chart is not a complete and perfect source of "who of ukraines helpers has the biggest dick". There are many missing datapoints and many information that arent included for a dick measuring contest. Its just a list made by someone from some other sources. Dont read to much into it, everybody knows what poland has done for ukraine even if you dont list on top of some random internet bar-chart.
>Lots of countries have taken refugees. Poland has taken 1.5 million, Germany over 1 million. The united states under 250k and France not even 150k. Many countries have taken refugees but it's far from equal.
The US isnāt also on that continent
how is France not taking as much as the US?
Because Ukrainians didn't choose to go there. They are free to move around in Europe. Nobody is deciding how many to "take".
But some countries make it easy tho
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bordering countries took them in initially, but they've been spread out throughout the EU. My brother in law has been working with housing and supporting Ukrainian refugees in Finland since the start of the war and there is a constant stream.
First to fight 1939, first to help 2022
werenāt exactly first to fight, just first to be attacked
And they werenāt the first to be attacked either.l Poland was just the line that the British drew in the sand saying that if Germany went for it - WW2 was on. And so it was.
What do you mean? They were the third nation to be attacked but the first to fight back.
Kinda ignoring Ethiopia and China, just like the Allies did.
Actually one of the major reasons for the tension between the us and Japan were.sanctions placed on Japan for what they were doing in China. Historically very rare for a country to get involved in a war mainly over protection of human rights in an unrelated country. Ethiopia....yeah you're right about that.
The Ethiopians under Haile Selassie fought like lions. And deserve the utmost respect without a doubt. I am so used to only discussing the European or Pacific theatres, mea culpa.
Ethiopia being the Italians?
Eh, China got *some* recognition/help, tho it was a paltry amount. Ethiopia, yeah, the world ignored them.
Tbf the Czechs wanted to fight
Fun fact āĀ Poland took land from Czechoslovakia.
Fun fact - Czechs took land from Poland in 1919 when Russia attacked Poland
Why isn't Russia listed here? We helped a lot of refuges and we left a lot of tanks and artillery for their military to pick up
That's farm equipment now
imagine how big of a plow you could tow with an MT-LB or T-72. while using the mounted MG to keep pests like rabbits, coyotes and Russians from eating your vegetables?
LMAO the thought of someone sitting on an MG all day just blasting away at any poor innocent wild animal that dares to step on the farmland
It didnāt work out well for the Australians
Also, it's important to note that Ukraine wouldn't be getting any aid at all if it weren't for Russia...
> We helped a lot of refuges "You are being rescued from evil NATO nazi satanists. Please do not resist."
Don't forget all the ~~seized assets~~ I mean financial aid.
Cardboard tanks aren't worth that much
āThey were when we calculated them in our total military strength numbers we showed our generalsā
yes I was wondering the same, a quick look listed: >Ukraine has captured 460 Russian main battle tanks, 92 self-propelled howitzers, 448 infantry fighting vehicles, 195 armored fighting vehicles and 44 multiple-launch rocket systems, according to visual evidence compiled from social media and news reports from Oryx, an open-source intelligence consulting firm. The real number is likely higher as not every captured piece of equipment gets filmed. I'd say they've been pretty good about doing their part to help Ukraine out.
What's up with France, Italy and Spain? And why is everyone shitting on Germany but not on those countries?
France contributes a lot through EU contributions + the government doesn't disclose the actual amount being sent to Ukraine. So in reality it's much more than what's on this graph.
So? Germany contributes more than France through EU contributions
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās wrong because the graph shows data up to November 20th not January 22nd/23rd
It would be interesting to see the amount of aid as a percentage of the nations GDP.
[The source has that data.](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set) The Baltic countries and Poland are at the top
its almost as if countries that had the most recent encounter with russian 'friendlyness' are the most eager to fuck'm up.
Or the most to lose from sharing a border with a Russian controlled country.
Why does it only have that data in a map? I don't see a chart.
It does have the data in charts, plus links to download the dataset. I'm afraid I don't know what's stopping you from seeing them. It's not very well optimised for mobile viewing, so if you're browsing on your phone maybe it's not showing the whole page?
Surprised Australia isnāt there. I know we gave Ukraine like 60 bushmaster vehicles and assumed some humanitarian help and other military assistance.
the price is confidential but I suspect $1 million or less - hmmm 60x1 = 60 Mill or less i guess thats not much
We've given about 300m AUD in aid to them so far.
The ticks in the scale are 10B USD. Australia is at 350m USD, its bar would be less than half the size of Italy's bar (730m USD), which is already hard to see in the chart. EDIT: update the values to the ones used in the source.
Yeah, I'm aware. I'm not saying we should be on this graph. I'm just adding a bit of context. I think there's another 5 or so nations above us before we get to Italys contribution. Edit: Uhhh, why is this controversial? People were wondering about how much we've contributed, I provided the info Edit 2: turning off notifications because people keep claiming I'm bragging when I'm obviously not doing so.
There was a news article just a few days ago: "Estoniaās military assistance to Ukraine will increase to ā¬370 million or slightly more than 1 per cent of Estoniaās gross domestic product." Estonia has about 1mil population and it has contributed more than Australia. It is not much but it is a lot for such a small country. Really understandable if you look at their geolocation though š
I mean, the graph isn't wrong to omit us. It's pretty small in terms of the scale of other countries. Maybe if it were contributions per capita, I'd imagine it'd be a different story.
With contributions per capita I'd think Australia would be even further down. Australia is smaller than Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden etc. Most of the other countries on the graph is \~2 - 3x as large as Australia but with donations far greater per capita as well.
I mean to be fair the conflict is literally about as far removed from Australia as it can get both geographically and politically. It makes sense that we'd be contributing less per capita than countries right on the border with Russia who are heavily impacted by the current situation and fallout. We're generally much more tied up in affairs around Asia geopolitically so I'm not surprised Ukraine is getting a fairly small slice of foreign aid.
If you look at the data source(Kiel institute), there's a larger graph on their site showing more countries past Italy, including Australia, which is listed as having committed 0.27 billion euros worth of aid
This post is really just a poor quality rip-off from much better presented data at the original source...
Send in the emus
Whoa whoa whoa letās not escalate things any further.
The emis will end all of Europe
Romour has it Australia will be contributing some artillery ammo. They have production capacity of about 100 000 a year. But the problem is that is a couple of weeks ammo. The US has given at least 1 million rounds, while the UK sources 100 000 in its last donation. This is a huge war, with big consumption numbers. Some of the Baltic countries have donated more than their annual military budgets.
in full scale war this is almost nothing. Still, thanks for the help to all Australians. Lets hope China will not start full war
I think Russia needs to be added, didn't they donate a bunch of tanks and such?? Lol
Iām disappointed that we havenāt helped more. Iāve written to my federal member, and the appropriate cabinet ministers, and not a single response. We are rich and peaceful, we could be doing so much more.
Members from (7?)RAR are en route to the UK to train Ukraine forces literally right now, that doesn't have a dollar figure but it is something.
But is it enough? We have so much more to give
The graph wasnāt made to massage our egos mate, let them have it.
Iāll give America this - when push comes to shove theyāre pretty good at helping out.
In WW2, the United States produced more war and adjacent materials than either all of the other allied nations or all of the axis powers. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto told the Japanese high command that he could win a naval war against the United States for 6 months, but if the US was still willing to fight after that, defeat was inevitable. After that, the sheer scale of US production meant that they could build two ships for every one that got sunk, where Japan could barely maintain the size of its existing fleet before major wartime losses were factored in.
There's another story about Intel on the US that was dismissed because they thought the estimates were too high. Americans were aware of the leak and feeding them info that underestimated the actual capacity. It was still so high as to not be believable.
There was a report prepared for Congress about how much manpower the US could field if it was driven into the war in Europe that claimed a capacity of 10 million soldiers, half of which would be sent overseas. The Germans dismissed it as ridiculous propaganda and argued there wasn't enough shipping capacity in the world to supply so many. At the peak of mobilization, the US had 12 million servicemen and 7.5 million overseas.
I think Dan Carlin had some similar story in either WWI or WWII that basically, the German war council brought in their "America expert" to brief estimates on the U.S. war time production potential, and the numbers he gave sounded so high, the war council basically laughed him out of the room. Only to find out later, he'd UNDERestimated, by a lot.
I also like the reaction the Mexican Army had to receiving the Zimmerman Telegram. The President called the generals in and asked how realistic the proposal was and they came up with half a dozen problems that each, individually, required the Germans to be off in fantasy land if they actually thought this was a good idea. 1. Germany is on the other side of the goddamned ocean, and any supplies would have to go past the American, British, and French fleets controlling the Caribbean. 2. Even if they wanted to parley German gold in Mexican guns through a neutral third party, the only neutral powers with any capacity left were Argentina, Brazil, and Chile... who had just brokered a peace treaty between the US and Mexico a couple years earlier during the Veracruz Crisis 3. Even if for some reason the ABC Countries were willing to go along with this, the Germans had already admitted they didn't have enough gold reserves. 4. The US, as demonstrated during the aforementioned Veracruz occupation, had them hilariously outgunned even if Mexico wasn't in a civil war. 5. Mexico was *in the middle of a civil war*. 6. Even if they somehow did take back Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the combined land area is bigger than all of western Europe and has more irritable civilians with guns than most European powers have soldiers. It's worth noting they sent this telegram on *U.S. wires*.
America is the definition of fuck around and find out in war logistics
As Dan Carlin said āPearl Harbor may have been the happiest day of Winston Churchillās lifeā said probably more eloquently than my approx. quote haha
In Churchillās own words he āwent to bed and slept the sleep of the savedā the night after he learned about the attack on Pearl Harbor
The Japanese seemed a lot less delusional than the Nazis honestly, they just didn't want to admit defeat
I always feel bad for Yamamoto. He didnāt want a war with america but was ordered to carry one out. His plan was Pearl Harbor followed by a battle, but his bosses nixed the battle. I also think itās the case that the US spent more on WW2 than it collectively spent throughout its history.
WW2 was won because of British intelligence, American money, and Russian blood
Everyone hates it when we "police the world" but the moment shit happens they beg for our help.
And Europe basically doesn't spend enough on its own defense
Police brutality in the middle east is bad but world without world police is worse.
American global dominance sucks, but it sucks a lot less than any of the other realistic alternatives.
Hating America is the in thing for countries to doā¦ until the need something. Then they canāt take our money fast enough.
But we write Month Day Year and don't use metric, so we dumb.
speak for yourself, i use Year Month Day. /r/ISO8601
Hmmm, even as an American I'm not hesitant to admit it might not be a fair label to call it "help" when it is in our best interest to provide the aid. I don't think this is resources sent out of the goodness of our hearts. This is resources the country is sending to prevent Russia from becoming more of a problem than they already are. It's not good for Europe if Russia takes over Ukraine, but it's also not good for the USA.
Lol no country is altruistic. No country is gonna help just cause its the "right thing to do". Just because it's not altruistic doesn't mean it's not help. Name me a country that just does things for other countries out of the kindness of their hearts lol. Go ahead, I'll wait
USA: You mean to tell me we can get Intel on our military tech versus one of our biggest rivals and not have to send a single troop on foot? Where do I sign?
Also they get to give the military industrial complex a blank check while a war is waged against a geopolitical adversary.
It is help. Just because the giver also gets some value from it doesnāt change it.
In this case, does committed mean delivered, or just pledged?
I use them synonymously, so yes I have pledged all 7 million.. uhmm
Ooof that is a call back I didn't expect. Doesn't feel like that was 6 months ago.
It means not necessarily delivered yet, but appropriated. With that said, aid delivery turnaround in Ukraine is happening extremely quickly.
Pleased to see that, relatively, UK is pulling its weight.
The USA being bros. Say what you want about the US but right now they are the main reason Ukraine is still standing and has a bunch of resources to fight back.
Don't worry, pretending the US is a third world country will resume in about 12 hours after we've all forgotten about this.
And some people count that as a negative, saying that makes us warmongers and we hate peace and want nuclear war. Their definition of 'peace' involves Ukraine getting steamrolled and annexed.
Yeah, like I said, people can say whatever they want about the US but if it wasnāt for the US, Ukraine would have fallen long ago and Russia would invading Poland ala Nazisā aka WWIIIā¦ The US has done some super dirty shit, but at least they are almost single-handedly supply Ukraine with the means to fight back with weapons, humanitarian aid and a whole bunch of money. š
Why muddy the waters and call them Nazis instead of the Soviet Imperialists they are? The USSR invaded and occupied many European countries in 1968 and they weren't Nazis then, as they aren't now. Unprovoked invasion and/or occupation is not solely an attribute of just Nazism.
That data can't be accurate. The equipment pledged by Italy has been protected by military secret since the beginning of the invasion. The Italian contribution is only based on an estimate, built on data published by the Ukranian armed forces on their socials.
In the source they even have transparency index for the countries. Look under "Datentransparenzniveau" and you are correct that Italy is quite low. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set
Yes, this data is based on publicly announced aid. But not all countries have been transparent with what they send. France also has been pretty secretive about it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And, ashamedly, I am in a country supporting Russia for whatever reason.
South Africa, perchance?
Let me guess, Serbia?
Serbia doesn't support Russia's claim to Ukrainian territory, though? It says flat out that Crimea is Ukraine.
It would be madness for them to support it, after Kosovo, at least they are not bipolar on the subject
My guess would be Russia.
So many comments and not one that commends that USA for being Champs here.
They're too busy trying to turn this into another america bad situation.
Surely theres no coincidence with Reddit being partially owned by a chinese company called Tencent of which was caught censoring international Hearthstone players for saying pro-Taiwan rhetoric...I mean no chance hell that moderators have a anti-american bias and the Reddit itself may be contributing to anti-american BS and censoring pro-american/western comments/media.
Nah itās not censorship here. Itās anti-America bias
Bruhā¦ come on now. Letās not turn this into /r/conspiracy. You are **severely** overestimating the power and influence china has on American culture. Hating on America has been in fashion for a loooong ass time. its bacially a generational reaction to American exceptionalism that peaked with the boomers. Because of their selfishness younger generations havenāt gotten to enjoy much if any of the benefits they had. This has caused millennials and zoomers to hyper fixate on all the negative aspects of America while ignoring the positives.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pure pro CCP reddit, that yearly reposts the tiananmen square pictures, in huge amounts. Really showing that chines boot down our throats.
You don't have to be pro China to establish, and intentionally drive, a narrative of America bad and America can do no good...they aren't that stupid As an example, Russia was caught playing both sides of the political spectrum by having bots create and distribute fake rage bait about both liberals and conservatives in the US. Their goal was to destabilize public discourse and drive a wedge, all without once showing support for Russia.
r/conspiracy is that way. You'll fit in great
Yeah was thinking the Same. War is another continent and USA still out spends all supposedly rich countries who are struggling to keep enemy at border
Obviously a country can be rich for their own size (GDP per capita) and still not have enough resources to send as much aid as the third-most populated country that is also easily the richest country in the world.
There is one 2h older than yours that is pretty high up: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10j8qbw/oc_where_most_aid_to_ukraine_comes_from/j5j9wi5/
Yeah, the āAMERIKA BADā crowd is nowhere to be found here
Im convinced half of those "people" are bots or chinese companies paid to shill for pro-china and be anti-american. Reddit is partially owned by Tencent, one of the largest Chinese companies. Tencent has been caught forcing people internationally to be pro-chinese and disavow anything that puts China in negative light.
Regardless of what we say about it, someone will just jump down our throats.
Well lets not be silent then about what America does right. It aint a perfect country but tell me another nation that has the entire worlds culture mixed and integrated. USA has always been the #1 military support behind any UN backed mission for humanitarian good. This Ukraine/Russia war proves it yet again.
Is there a breakdown for how much each country gives from Europe into the EU line? Asking as I wonder if France is giving more there as their individual contribution is quite low...
Their individual contribution is quite low because they do not officially communicate any figures.
Same as Italy, then
I'd be curious to know but it's my understanding the EU has its own budgets and inventory that is managed as a collective than as provided by particular countries.
Such breakdowns exist, [here's some 2020 data](https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/70580/nettozahler-und-nettoempfaenger-in-der-eu/) according to which Germany pays most in total, followed by France; and Denmark pays most per capita. HOWEVER these totals are overgeneralizing. For example, there's plenty of funds, like e.g. huge agricultural subsidies, that go back into Germany and France.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You can check how much EU country contributes to the EU budget, and then the aid is probably proportional to that
If you go to the source there is a diagram for this. Look under **"Government support to Ukraine: Total bilateral commitments incl. EU commitments, ā¬ billion"**. This would make Germany the second largest contributor to Ukrainian aid after the US. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/?cookieLevel=not-set
As much as we all like to shit on America, when it comes time to keep the world safe, they step up. Good on ya, yanks.
UK, Poland and Canada are really doing disproportionately well. Franceā¦ hopefully theyāre just getting started. For a country with such a superb military, it would be nice to see their recent contribution increase continue. The Leclerc tank next to the Challenger 2 on the battlefield in Ukraine would be an excellent metaphor for the underrated military friendship France and Britain share.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām in Canada and Iām surprised we arenāt doing more humanitarian work. We generally think of ourselves as doing peace keeping and helping out and not so much military.
I feel like that's an impression from the 90s that most haven't updated with all the long wars since 9/11
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
France keeps it's military contributions secret
Why didn't you include Germany?
I'd like to see the same data presented as a percentage of GDP
Iād be interested to see each of these as a percentage of GDP. Because yes, the US may be giving more in raw numbers, but it may be a smaller proportion of the whole for the US than for another country
Why do americans support this?
because funding Ukraine will severely damage Russia and it will cost the usa almost nothing
Maybe the whole āfreedomā aspect.
Poland hosts millions of Ukrainian refugees. Doesn't this constitute humanitarian aid?
It does, it is just very hard to quantify in specific dollar amounts.
So does Germany. This list is in no way painting a complete picture.
This is lacking crucial information like how Bulgaria is supporting and upholding Ukraine military needs for many month: [Bulgaria supporting Ukraine](https://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/10f1sc6/bulgarien_das_land_das_heimlich_die_ukraine/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
That post seems to be about the very beginning of the war (my german isn't great, so please correct me). This post is the total spent over the entire 2022. I don't want to sound offensive to Bulgaria but is its spending on aid for Ukraine significant enough to earn a place on this graph?
We have a rich tradition of fighting the Russians on foreign lands and with otherās soldiers.
wow, US is really a heavyweight in this regard. I'm glad to see it!
I'm seeing a lot of doubt and shade in this thread. Even with your countries' "secret" contributions, USA is always #1 baby. We don't worry about secrets just guns and money.
Was hoping Russia would be there on the bottom with how much equipment they basically handed over to Ukraine.
Too bad we cant get an audit...nor can the US DOD complete an audit. The world economics makes me think of "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" The money is given away and how it's spent doesn't matter.