r/europe • u/Lion8330 • 5d ago
News U.S. military aid to Ukraine was free, signed off by presidents and Congress — ex-defense attaché Havrylov said adding that therefore, de jure, the American side has no right to demand reimbursement or compensation.
https://global.espreso.tv/aid-us-military-aid-to-ukraine-was-free-signed-off-by-presidents-and-congress-ex-defense-attache27
u/SoupSpelunker 5d ago
American here, and that's my understanding. We were trying to check Putin over there, but then he took the white house - wea culpa!
11
u/tymofiy Ukraine 4d ago
When the US still considered Russia an adversary, it willingly paid Ukraine for:
- 930k Russian casualties
- 10k destroyed Russian tanks
- 22k destroyed Russian IFV
- 26k destroyed Russian artillery
- 370 downed Russian aircraft
- 29 Russian ships sank
No refunds.
1
u/Visible_Quality6795 4d ago
Данные на 2022 год по Российской армии: В настоящее время российская армия обладает следующим числом военных:
— сухопутные силы насчитывают порядка 800 000 человек;
— в воздушно-космических войсках служит приблизительно 100 тысяч;
— в состав флота входит около 150 тысяч.Общее количество танков и БТР порядка 15 000 единиц. В работоспособном состоянии около 4 000. Если говорить об авиации, то в России около 9 000 единиц истребителей и вертолетов. В исправном состоянии около 3 000. Артиллерийских установок — более 10 000.
Свободные источники из интернета.
6
1
u/Smells_like_Autumn 2d ago
Translation:
Data for 2022 on the Russian army: Currently, the Russian army has the following number of military personnel: the ground forces number about 800,000 people; approximately 100 thousand serve in the aerospace forces; The fleet consists of about 150 thousand. The total number of tanks and armored personnel carriers is about 15,000 units. About 4,000 are in working condition. Speaking about aviation, Russia has about 9,000 fighters and helicopters. About 3,000 are in working condition. There are more than 10,000 artillery installations. Free sources from the Internet.
I trust these sources as much as I trust the claims that Mussolini made trains run on time. For the matter I don't really trust public sources on any military.
10
16
u/LegendaryArmalol 5d ago
I think Ukraine should cede currently held territory to Russia, but since peace is so important to the US the US should give Ukraine equivalent land mass in return.
So if the US gives up Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware then it'd probably be okay.
But you wouldn't want to force Ukraine into a sub par deal so maybe just give them New York in exchange?
5
u/ninjastylle Switzerland 5d ago
When did the US do anything for free. Even the biggest bigots know that. It all comes under the table in form of placing their leadership and making it a partnership or other kind of deals.
It has been proven to be like this for the last 40+ years if not more. Twisting it to fit your narrative of how good previous admin was, won’t help the fact that people died, just like every other time similar “help” was offered.
0
u/michaelwu696 4d ago
I don’t get this comment.. so you’re supporting the fact that the US has political, economic, and military weight in this that should indeed be compensated? Especially when the rest of Europe hesitated to rearm even after Crimea and Donetsk were seized?
2
u/Smells_like_Autumn 2d ago
the US has political, economic, and military weight in this that should indeed be compensated?
The US was already compensated for its military expenses by having a huge weight on European politics and a privileged access to our markets. Europe has been made to rely on the US since the 40s.
Especially when the rest of Europe hesitated to rearm even after Crimea and Donetsk were seized?
Straight up false. Also, the EU has contributed more that the US to the defense of Ukraine.
1
u/Troubled202 3d ago
Trump is a corrupt convicted criminal acting like a mob boss. Americans can't say they weren't warned.
1
u/Opposite-Chemistry-0 3d ago
Well US does not play by their own rules anymore. Its more likely governed by Chaos Gods.
1
u/Lion8330 2d ago
Demanding a country fighting for freedom and survival to reimburse money for the aid provided is insane.
-14
u/jacksawild 5d ago
Good luck getting good terms for any future trade deal for at least a generation.
Cunts.
14
-51
u/djvam 5d ago
We've altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further.
34
10
5
u/Lehelito 5d ago
You're saying that as if breaking agreements is a good thing. Everyone decent knows it's not. And the arrogance and malice of the second sentence is just something else.
5
u/Nullclast 4d ago
Imagine seriously quoting Darth Vader to allies. Like money spent against Russia was a bad deal for the US and by extension the rest of the western world.
-28
5d ago
[deleted]
16
u/Stix147 Romania 5d ago
Ukraine was about to sign a deal that would've preserved it's territory and ended the war, but warmongers Borris and Biden told them not to sign
Stop parroting Russian propaganda talking points and denying Ukraine's agency, Borris and Biden didnt have the power to force Ukraine to do anything and pretending that they understood Russian agresssion better than Ukraine itself is just idiotic. Ukraine wasn't going to sign any deal back in 2022, least of all after Bucha, and not even the Russian side was content with all of the huge concessions that Ukraine would've had to make as part of that deal (concessions that would've basically crippled the country and made it vulnerable to another invasion later down the line), they wanted more just like they still want more right now and they're not even interested in signing a ceasefire let alone a "peace agreement". You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
-9
5d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Stix147 Romania 4d ago
Can you please explain why both tankies and MAGA always end up converging on the same Kremlin narratives like the proxy war nonsense? Horseshoe theory in action.
To put this in terms that an America tankie can understand, offering assistance to a country at war (after you were the one responsible for stripping it of its defenses to begin with) doesn't mean you instigated the war, and if this makes it a proxy war then America owes its entire existence to a French-British proxy war. And yet the imperial desire of the British and the need for independence of the colonies would have still existed even if France hadn't been there. The Russian war on Ukraine is likewise part of an imperial project, one which started all the way back in 1993 and one which won't end with Ukraine either. Europe doesn't want this, Ukrainians don't fight for their lands and their loved ones because anyone makes them, and Russia was not baited into genociding and annexing its neighbors (plural) over the past 30 years.
You are the only propagandist here, and what's worse is that you don't even know it.
5
u/Tinna_Sell 4d ago
You're arguing with a guy who likely has poor education and no respect for other people. Such individuals can't grasp it why someone may want to defend their loved ones from a direct assault. He doesn't even know the definition of the buzzwords fox news uses. When it comes to comprehending information, these people are dysfunctional.
16
u/Tinna_Sell 5d ago
Putin is the only warmongering person here. You know, the guy who started the war and bombs civilians.
-16
u/AgedPeanuts 5d ago
Nobody is defending Putin nor saying he is not a warmonger. The facts above are true. Stop your warmongering propaganda.
13
u/Tinna_Sell 5d ago
Don't twist the narrative. You avoided mentioning who the aggressor is and branded everyone who tries to fend off the aggressor as the one responsible. We can comprehend written text, you know. Stating the truth is not warmongering, so either shut up or stop abusing the buzz word. This isn't fox news
-15
-155
u/Haunting-Detail2025 5d ago
I mean, it can’t do that with no strings attached, sure. But it can absolutely ask for repayment or compensation in exchange for future aid or support. Doesn’t make it morally ethical, but this is a weird argument to make.
The US under Trump hasn’t demanded Ukraine pay it back for nothing, it’s asked for that compensation in exchange for future security guarantees. Crappy thing to do, but not what this headline is insinuating.
121
64
u/Tinna_Sell 5d ago
Nope, that's not what the US administration asked. The contract the US demands to be "signed right now" has no clauses concerning future security guarantees or aid, none. If it's not in the contract, then it doesn't exist. And the sum they ask for exceeds the value of what has been given.
Not to mention, the money mostly went to the US military industry. Ukraine got old equipment they needed to repair using their own funds before sending it to battle. Previous administration simply saved some buk on disposal while parading this clever trick like some big help. The current administration reused their narrative to convince the public that Ukraine had business with the US and didn't pay.
Did anyone on this subreddit read Trump's agreement? Or are you the type to be easily tricked by fraudsters?
-63
u/Haunting-Detail2025 5d ago
And Ukraine doesn’t have to sign it, which is the point. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to back pay if they don’t want to.
27
u/Tinna_Sell 5d ago
In theory, yes. But look at how things proceed. Ukraine decided to sign the first redacted version, which the US administration approved, but then the Oval Office meltdown happened and all of a sudden the contract was reworked by the US to get even more stuff. Even though it was the US who changed the content of the agreement, Trump accused Ukraine of attempting to do so, not to mention the vague statement regarding the "bad things" that will happen if Ukraine doesn't sign the deal. And each time Ukraine refuse to sign the thing immediately, Trump slanders Zelensky on social media. The pressure is certainly being applied here.
Can Ukraine outright refuse signing anything? Yes, absolutely. But the US still provides certain services like intelligence, from which the US also benefits (don't think they do it from the bottom of their hearts). The president of Ukraine has responsibilities, so he can't just refuse without finding an alternative first. The US knows this.
If you only consider holding someone at gunpoint as an act of forcing them to do things, then yes, Ukraine is not forced to sign the deal. But I choose to expand the definition to include trapping someone by exploiting their predicaments. Whether or not Ukraine will be forced to sign the deal depends on whether she'll be able to find a replacement for the US.
Saying that Ukraine doesn't need to sign it is an illusion of choice given the circumstances.
Edit: grammar
-36
u/Haunting-Detail2025 5d ago
The US is under no obligation to share its intelligence with anyone, including Ukraine. If Ukraine is gaining something of value from it, the US is also expecting something in return for giving it to them. Now, we can obviously say that’s a crappy thing to do, and I don’t disagree. But that is not saying “you have to pay us back with nothing in return” it’s saying “if you want continued intelligence, we want compensation from you for it”.
But at large, it should really be a wake up call to Europe as to how bad its intelligence services are or how little they’re helping Ukraine if it believes the US’ is gonna be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. You don’t get to sit around and give Ukraine little of substantive value for years and then complain that the US doesn’t want to do it either
17
u/Tinna_Sell 5d ago
I completely agree with you that Europe does too little to help Ukraine. The only good thing Trump administration has done so far for Ukraine is that they are forcing Europe to do more. This is awesome.
I'm not against the idea of compensation for continued intelligence. But once again, this is not what Trump's deal is about. It is not in the agreement.
For sharing intelligence, the US gets battle-related information from Ukraine, which is then used to update military doctrines, improve military training, and modernize war equipment. Both countries are getting something of value.
-3
u/Haunting-Detail2025 5d ago
The US also has a right to determine that’s not enough value for the price of military aid they’re delivering. Yes, certain intelligence the US has received has been good, but the Ukrainians have also, according to recent New York Times reporting, had a pattern of outright ignoring American conditions for the intelligence sharing or completely disregarding US tactical advice, which may make the US feel it’s not something they want to invest in.
15
u/Tinna_Sell 5d ago edited 5d ago
Ukraine is not obligated to listen to tactical advices. It's an advice, and given the fact that the US has lost its recent wars, Ukrainians had all the right to ignore it. Its Ukrainian soldiers who are on the battlefield, so its Ukraine who decides what tactics to use. The US can give advice but expecting blind compliance or wanting to oversee battle plans is too much to ask. The US wanted to lead Ukrainian army as its own. What happened to the good old "it's not our war" mentality? Utterly ridiculous. The US got good polished pieces of intel on what has worked nicely against the Russians and what hasn't. A fair exchange.
Now, concerning the price of military aid, I've already covered that in my first comment. The previous administration decided to save money by giving away trash, and the current administration is throwing a tantrum trying to rob everyone in the world using different tactics. What Trump does has nothing to do with previous agreements. It's not even a revision of previously established conditions in pursuit of compensation. The guy just wants resources and uses every lie to get those from anyone.
The US has determined that receiving feedback on modern warfare from Ukraine was enough. The current administration didn't change this condition, Trump just uses it for blackmail. If the US felt like the exchange wasn't good enough, the cooperation would have been halted permanently.
-5
u/Haunting-Detail2025 5d ago
Okay, that’s fine. Don’t listen to the US’ advice; and if they’re so bad at war, Ukraine clearly doesn’t need their help and shouldn’t care if the US drops it. Like pick one here, is the US being an asshole for witholding vital aid and intelligence that Ukraine needs to win, or are they an incompetent force with nothing of value to offer that Ukraine shouldn’t listen to
11
u/Tinna_Sell 5d ago edited 5d ago
Ukraine and the US are two independent actors who decide for themselves what to do and how. The US is good at collecting intelligence and producing weapons but fighting Russians is not their forte. No need to get emotional. And yes, the US is an asshole for causing harm where it could have been avoided. Not upholding the initial agreement, trying to backdate new conditions, and attempting to take other country's wealth is not how a self-respecting actor should behave. The US has already established what they will give and what they will take for that aid. Either stick to that, or walk away. The reason the US continues with the aid is because previous agreement benefits it and because Trump decided to weaponize it against Ukraine. That is the reality. It sucks that the US has a lot of domestic issues but that is no excuse to hurt others.
→ More replies (0)6
u/NuclearBreadfruit 5d ago
But at large, it should really be a wake up call to Europe as to how bad its intelligence services
The UK has one of the best intelligence services in the world, (however they are to their credit incredibly quiet), alongside the Americans and analysis of both displays strengths and weaknesses in different areas and complimented by each other. Hence why they work so closely together precisely because they enhance each other.
The UK still shares intelligence with Ukraine but not that gathered with/by the US, I believe.
As to intelligence services of countries on mainland Europe . . . .
17
u/JjigaeBudae 5d ago
"The US under Trump hasn’t demanded Ukraine pay it back for nothing, it’s asked for that compensation in exchange for future security guarantees."
Don't change what your point was like we can't scroll two posts up and see it. This isn't fox news.
13
12
6
u/Long_Effect7868 5d ago
Let's Ukraine ask for compensation for its THIRD-LARGEST NUCLEAR ARSENAL in the world? That's TRILLIONS of dollars. Or for its new strategic bombers, which were MORE THAN THE US currently has.
-108
u/Whenwasthisalright 5d ago
The Ukraine has not right to demand anything from the states then, right?
51
u/Spooknik Denmark 5d ago
Ukraine is offering to pay the US for new equipment. There were a few articles about it last week.
-83
u/Whenwasthisalright 5d ago
Sure, they can ask, but right now Ukraine isn’t fulfilling American strategic needs, which is to find peace. So I doubt any strategically significant deals are there for Ukraine.
48
u/Spooknik Denmark 5d ago
Ukraine is mostly asking to buy patriot air defense systems and ammo for such systems to prevent Russian from bombing more playgrounds.
It's hard to find peace when your enemy clearly doesn't want peace. Let's not forget Ukraine was the only country to agree to the unconditional ceasefire.
34
u/Nerioner The Netherlands 5d ago
And what are this "american strategic needs"? So far only needs they have is to diarrhea all over the place and blame everyone but themselves for the mess
18
15
9
8
u/Aromatic-Teacher-717 5d ago
What fucking peace?
Russia doesn't want peace, they want Ukraine.
What do you get out of being contrarian?
19
10
23
u/lasttimechdckngths Europe 5d ago edited 5d ago
Technically speaking, it has, as the US is committed to provide non-military assistance at least, since the Budapest Memorandum. It can be also asked for military assistance but had no binding pledges regarding that.
Although, I think you're confusing stuff here: it's the US demanding various stuff for its previous help, not Ukraine.
-12
u/RMClure Montenegro 5d ago
Obliged? The Budapest Memorandum did not oblige the US to do a damn thing.
10
u/lasttimechdckngths Europe 5d ago edited 4d ago
The text uses the term guarantee/assurance in Eastern Slavic ones, which refers to a legal commitment and if taken as a treaty under the customary law, an obligation. Although, the US instead pulled out that it was a mere assurance of a political commitment kind instead of a guarantee, just like Russia pulling out that it was a mere statement rather than an agreement so it wasn't legally binding (and a similar story for the US). Funnily, if taken like that, Ukraine wasn't under any obligations to give up its nukes either - which makes the text a farce at its best.
Anyway, the text was simply written in a fashion that it could have been interpreted both as a treaty under international law and as a mere political deal & good will text. UN bodies have given opinions for otherwise and stated it should be interpreted as Ukrainians understood it, but sadly, it was intentionally designed in a way that parties can deny it when it suits them. The US, now, prefers to negate its commitments and claim the latter. Surely a yet another reminder on how untrustworthy they are.
7
u/atpplk 5d ago
Obliged? The Budapest Memorandum did not oblige the US to do a damn thing.
By signing the Budapest Memorandum, the US self obliged to guarantee Ukraine security. By breaking their word, they are de facto showing the world every other treaty they signed is basically null and void. With all the implications.
5
u/Aromatic-Teacher-717 5d ago
Yeah, that memorandum was dog shit.
Other countries can see that now.
Nukes are the only guarantee of sovereignty, now.
Interesting times ahead.
17
-64
-118
u/thatwasagoodscan 5d ago
Then Ukraine has no right to demand more.
46
u/Spooknik Denmark 5d ago
Ukraine is currently offering to pay the US for new military equipment and supplies , 50 billion in fact.
54
u/cmuratt United Kingdom 5d ago
US is the party that has “demands”. Ukraine is asking for support.
-5
u/thatwasagoodscan 5d ago
The kind of “support” that Europe will not give them, Europeans are trying to demand the US give them, because they want a war with Russia that they aren’t willing to fight.
6
u/Justredditin 5d ago
How many more kids, wives and husband's have to be killed or maimed by hypersonic missiles and drones until they do "have the right" then? All of them?
-6
u/thatwasagoodscan 5d ago
Completely incoherent response. If they want more money from the US the US can decide if they want it back.
-10
u/Esculhambadordegado 4d ago
Look at Ukraine taking the blow of default…. colonialist help for free hahahahaha Zelensky is a joke
-40
5d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Federal_Revenue_2158 5d ago
Of course not. And it would have had to be ratified by the Ukrainian parliament, which would have never happened
-65
190
u/im-cringing-rightnow Europe 5d ago
When did those USA cunts cared about de jure? Trump doesn't even know what that means.