538
NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
538 points (97.4% liked)
World News
32317 readers
1020 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I know NATO doesn't have unlimited resources, but given that this is an explicit proxy war with Russia, doesn't $100bn seem kind of paltry? That makes it appear that they're planning on continuing cash infusions from the US.
EDIT: I'm saying that the US can't be relied on to continue supporting the war effort because the GOP in particular has become increasingly opposed to funding it.
It'd be so much better for everyone if we just took all of the funding going to Israel and redirected it to Ukraine. And then we nuke Israel or smthn idk
Chaotic good?
This thing has already been going on for 2 years and Russia isn't pulling out. It's a war of attrition. First side to blink loses. NATO cannot lose Ukraine to Russia. Period.
might be chump change for you but likely its tied to Ukraine's conceivable ability to pay down such debt. although in reality it would likely be mostly written off when things quiet down.. especially since the moneys would be mostly spent on NATO military goods.
Well IIRC, for America, the funding money amount for Ukraine is usually just an estimate of the worth of already manufactured goods, mainly of weapons that we have stored that we weren't gonna use in the first place, and only a small portion of the dollar amount is stuff like clothes, food, etc. which would be seen as an actual cost to the US. We have sent Bradleys and M1 Abrams (and some European countries sent Leopard 2A4s? and Leclercs I think), but I'm pretty sure they weren't in use by the military and weren't planned to be upgraded for use any time soon (but I'm just guessing, I can't Google it rn, I may just be completely wrong on that).
Maybe a little. The US had a bill for providing 60bn so 100bn is quite a bit more, though maybe not significantly considering all the countries involved.
We can do both.