536

NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine (www.bloomberg.com)

submitted 2 months ago by intelshill@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

254 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago

Paywall removed. https://archive.ph/BkIad

[-] RampageDon@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Doesn't it take only 1 of the counties with veto power to shut this down? Why would Russia ever approve?

Edit: Had a brain fart. Thanks for the corrections. Leaving my dumb comment anyway.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 81 points 2 months ago

NATO. Not the UN. Russia has no say into nato since it was designed to fit Russia.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 32 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

designed to fit Russia.

Luckily Russia isn't fit.

[-] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Down voted for a joke based on someone else's typo... what a world we live in

Edit: that's more like it

[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

I'm doing my part!

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

Never ask a man their wage, never ask a woman their age, never ask who started NATO and why.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago

Russia isn't in NATO, but they are it's most successful recruiter.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Which is why I'm baffled why people still spread the myth that Russia invaded to 'stop nato aggression.'

Like, firstly you're fucking wrong, but if you want to wear that L like a medal then go for it. Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago

I'm not sure who would say that it was to 'stop NATO aggression', but it's not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO's continued expansion around them.

NATO hasn't been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.

I think of it a lot in the same way as the US's pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago

I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

The "Cuban" missile crisis was started by USA putting nukes in Turkey.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

yup.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Saff@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 months ago

NATO not the UN, Russia isn’t a member.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

Who gave Russia a veto at NATO?

[-] MrEff@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

Turkey 🇹🇷.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] massive_bereavement@kbin.social 7 points 2 months ago

SO UN FAIR!

[-] NIB@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's 20 billion per year. The EU's alone defense spending for 2023 was 270bil. This is not a lot of money.

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 28 points 2 months ago

The EU has no defense budget, the member countries have.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, this is less the cavalry is here and more "we've committed 3 peanuts, which is better than no peanuts". It's probably enough to help Ukraine a bit, assuming they can agree to it and fund it as committed.

It's unclear if this is humanitarian, non-lethal or general military aid, from the non-paywalled section of the article.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 19 points 2 months ago

221 days until the next U.S. presidential election

Can Ukraine hold on that long?

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

If Republicans have a majority in Congress, they'll continue to support Russia.

load more comments (142 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The problem NATO has with this proxy war can't be solved by printing money. The issue lies in the lack of industrial production in the west, and you can't just create a huge industry for producing weapons and ammunition out of whole cloth.

This will be a fantastic vehicle for pushing for austerity in Europe though. The oligarchs have been very upset that Europeans enjoy a social safety net and things like pensions. The need for massive military spending will be a perfect justification for stripping these rights away from the workers. Europeans are about to start enjoying American style freedoms.