Media reports said as much as $700 billion could be allocated to Europe's defenses, though it was not clear how much of that amount would go to Kyiv.

Summary

European officials are preparing a multibillion-dollar defense package to bolster regional security and support Ukraine, announced by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at the Munich Security Conference.

The package, potentially valued up to 700 billion euros, will fund military training, arms deliveries, and security guarantees amid concerns over Russian aggression and diminishing U.S. contributions to NATO.

The move follows calls for Europe to boost its own defense spending while U.S.-Russian talks, which exclude Ukraine and Europe, on ending the Ukraine conflict continue.

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2312·
    2 days ago

    Where was this three years ago? Europe wants to make sure every last Ukrainian man is thrown into the meat grinder.

    • boonhet@lemm.eeEnglish
      312·
      2 days ago

      Our leaders have been too complacent, for what I think is a simple reason: It’s easier to depend on the Americans so your own national budget doesn’t take a hit and cause you to lose the next election.

      Now that we’ve seen that the US is an unreliable ally and (rightfully) wants to reduce its’ own military aid spending, they’re hopefully seeing the bigger picture.

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlEnglish
        94·
        2 days ago

        But why did Europe wait for America to bail before suddenly pulling a trillion dollars out of their pocket?

        If Ukraine was supposed to win Europe should have thought about ponying up that cash a bit sooner.

        • boonhet@lemm.eeEnglish
          13·
          2 days ago

          Because as soon as you propose spending billions of dollars on defending another country, people will generally say “but I don’t wanna pay more taxes or lose out on any comforts”, which causes you to lose your position of power in case of a democracy. It all comes down to selfishness in the end.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
          81·
          2 days ago

          Because they didn’t need to. As long as the United States was spending money on their truly vast military and was using that military capacity to defend Ukraine there was no requirement for any other the country do anything.

          Now that the US has decided to become a pawn of Russia, it has become important.

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlEnglish
            22·
            1 day ago

            They did need to. Ukraine is losing the war bigtime. They needed more weapons at the start before Russia ramped up production.

            If Europe sent the weapons at the start they could have broken the stalemate. Filling the American deficit does nothing to help Ukraine win.

    • Chee_Koala@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      1 day ago

      Why did they wait? Because if all this support started on day 1, a lot of folks would have feared nuclear retaliation and there is no way back from that.

      The Russo-Ukrainian conflict is too complex to use your oversimplified perspective, and thus only useful to throw oil on the fire. There are serious nuclear threats, Putin’s unpredictable actions, it also involves many (very different) countries standing up against tyranny. The bureaucracy may be slow in its responses, but efforts are being made to ensure careful moves that prevent escalation. Labeling European leadership as bloodthirsty is misleading in my eyes; they are actively working to protect democracy.

      Why would you think European leadership aiming for more dead Ukrainians? Why would they still provide financial and humanitarian support? And increase it now?