ListNook

Ecstatic_Wasabi_5166 Apr 15, 2026 +373

That's a hell of a lot of money, 60 billion's gonna make a huge difference for Ukraine.

373

Ultra_Metal Apr 16, 2026 +60

Yep, and they're also getting an additional 90 billion from the EU, for a total of 150 billion.

60

Estake Apr 16, 2026 +14

On top of countries' own support.

14

lollypatrolly Apr 15, 2026 +70

>That's a hell of a lot of money, 60 billion's gonna make a huge difference for Ukraine. It's a good start, at least, but they need a lot more in order to win the war quicker and more convincingly. Most of NATO/European countries still don't seem to take this issue very seriously (in fact if you combine the Ukraine contributions + defense budgets of most countries they're still typically under 5% of the country's GDP in total). Might be a tragedy of the commons issue, in which most countries might realize the threat but it makes more sense in a pure self-interest perspective to focus on your own economy while let other countries pick up the burden. (I'm aware that other sources of funding exist, such as the EU loans)

70

BestFriendWatermelon Apr 16, 2026 +100

This is in addition to $90 Billion loan the EU is expected to release soon now Orban is out. Combined this will roughly equal Russia's military spending. Although of course this aid money is split with financial aid to prop up the Ukrainian economy. Nonetheless, this is incredibly generous considering countries are still gifting weaponry to Ukraine as well.

100

StupidPockets Apr 16, 2026 +9

Russia will go broke fighting this war. The EU will not. At some point an economy will give up. Russia is backed by China and India. It’s hard to the EU to beat all three.

9

angelus14 Apr 16, 2026 +38

I don't think Russia has the same level of backing as Ukraine has from the EU. On Russia's end it's more like a business deal. No one besides Russia really cares if they fail, but the EU really would like Ukraine not to fail.

38

Mazon_Del Apr 16, 2026 +13

It's quite a vast difference in how that support actually is set up. Aid to Ukraine is often times either an outright gift or a loan with generous repayment terms (low interest, long repayment timeline). Meanwhile anything russia is getting from India and China is generally speaking a deal done with those countries fully aware they are in a position of power and as such they name astronomical prices for anything they send, paid up front.

13

Quazimojojojo Apr 16, 2026 +10

"backed by India" is a bit of an overstatement. More like "India won't cut ties because they're profiting off the discounted Russian oil and they want those weapon orders fulfilled while they develop their domestic weapons industry" India isn't exactly donating weapons or funds or soldiers.

10

lollypatrolly Apr 16, 2026 -12

> Combined this will roughly equal Russia's military spending. I get this, my point is that matching the Russian spending is not nearly good enough. We should aim for at least 5x their military spending in order to crush them.

-12

ChipRockets Apr 16, 2026 +7

Most of the Russian military spending tends to end up in people's pockets anyway

7

lollypatrolly Apr 16, 2026 +7

Some of it for sure, but this isn't very relevant to my point. Investing in crushing Russia right now will pay dividends in the future. Just giving Ukraine the tools to fight them to a standstill is not good enough from a deterrence perspective (but better than doing nothing).

7

ProMarshmallo Apr 16, 2026 +5

I haven't seen total numbers yet but with the changes to Starlink security in February, early March had Ukraine recapturing ground from Russia at a significant pace compared to Russia's pace of ground gained in 2025. If Russia's communication issues are persisting the 150 billion combined from the EU and NATO will be going a long way.

5

lollypatrolly Apr 16, 2026 +1

I'm not disputing that there's positive progress in the war, but just accepting that and resting on our laurels isn't going to be productive. We should be pushing for a swift end to the conflict, and to humiliate Russia to the greatest extent possible. That won't happen with just sustenance, but it might if we mobilize just a small fraction of our economies for the cause.

1

Koala_eiO Apr 16, 2026 +20

5% of the GDP is huge.

20

lollypatrolly Apr 16, 2026 -9

It's huge, and still very low in relation to the threat and the long-term benefits of acting now instead of putting it off like we're currently doing. This a long-term investment into our future security. If we don't spend that money right now we're just going to have to catch up later, because at some point Russia has to be stopped regardless. Better rip the band-aid off and tackle the problem in its infancy while it's still relatively c**** instead of waiting for Russia to gradually improve its capabilities. For some perspective, full war economies military spending ranges from 25-50% of a country's GDP. I'm suggesting something much lesser, just taking the threat seriously rather than completely upending our economies.

-9

Minute-Employ-4964 Apr 16, 2026 +5

What % of gdp would be acceptable to you?

5

dattokyo Apr 16, 2026 +23

> It's a good start Ukraine is not a military ally. Ukraine is not in NATO. Ukraine is not in the EU. Until the invasion, Ukraine was even considered a bit of a problematic country. This is on top of everything else that has been given, and on top of what countries are individually also giving to Ukraine. It's on top of deals like Ukraine setting up arms factories in EU countries. On top of arms deliveries. This is on top of European countries own increased military spending to prop up their own military. Not to mention that 5% of GDP is HUGE - 5% is straight up war-economy levels of spending. Look, I'm a huge supporter of Ukraine. And I certainly agree that there are certain countries that need/should give way more than they are. But if you ask other countries to basically force their own economy into a recession to help, that's going to be the fastest way to lose all support for Ukraine.

23

Estake Apr 16, 2026 +8

Yeah, 5% of GDP is a lot of f****** money. Gotta keep in mind that only around 40% of GDP is tax income. So that 5% is more like 12.5% of a government's budget.

8

lollypatrolly Apr 16, 2026 +8

> 5% is straight up war-economy levels of spending This is incorrect. Full war economy is 25-50% of GDP. 5% is regular cold war spending, which is a very good comparison to the situation we're in right now. >Ukraine is not a military ally. Ukraine is not in NATO. Ukraine is not in the EU. Until the invasion, Ukraine was even considered a bit of a problematic country. All of these claims are irrelevant to what we're discussing. Ukraine should be supported because it helps protect us, and helps establish a very advantageous precedent.

8

nobb Apr 16, 2026 +4

From a purely utilitarian point of view (which to be clear I don't share ) grinding Russia army at the cost of Ukraine for a low cost is probably a better deal than to excessively invest weapons and money in them for a quicker victory. Cynical, but geopolitically sound. l’m a huge supporter of Ukraine, but you have to acknowledge the reality to support them efficiently.

4

leo2734 Apr 16, 2026 +3

But most of that money will be reinvested back into the eu? So the eu wins. U give a loan of 90billion tell them to spend it on eu products. Eu benefits both in the short and long term and dont really lose much or anything.

3

Think_Discipline_90 Apr 16, 2026 +2

That's an explanation problem, because European countries do not exist down the road if Ukraine falls. With that said, we're not even close to a recession off it aid to Ukraine. Denmark is the highest contributor per gdp, 11th nominally across the world, and we haven't even felt it yet. There's so much more to give. Russia is reeling and the EU hasn't even really entered the fight yet.

2

dattokyo Apr 16, 2026 +1

> That's an explanation problem, because European countries do not exist down the road if Ukraine falls. Don't be absurd. No one, anywhere, is saying Russia could actually successfully invade, and keep, mainland Europe. No one, at any point. What people want to avoid is that Russia even tries, because such a war would be devastating to both sides. But there is absolutely zero scenarios where "European countries cease existing". You've been reading too many wackjob blogs.

1

Think_Discipline_90 Apr 16, 2026 +1

You need to find a little nuance in your debate. It's not about Russia alone invading Europe, and it's not even about territory. It's about forcing political decisions through military force. Everyone knowledgeable, everywhere, at any point in time, will tell you if Ukraine falls under Russian political influence ("Ukraine falls" scenario), then Europe is next. Do you think then the conclusion is "but Putin is just stupid because he doesn't know he can't do anything"? No, the assessment is that the rest of Europe would now face the biggest and second biggest army in Europe combined. And that's not to mention both of those armies are now experts in drone warfare. Ukraine falling is an existential crisis for Europe. It's fact. [Have a look](https://www.logicofwar.com/ukraines-role-in-european-security/)

1

dattokyo Apr 17, 2026 +1

> Everyone knowledgeable, everywhere, at any point in time, will tell you if Ukraine falls under Russian political influence ("Ukraine falls" scenario), then Europe is next. Show me a single reputable person that says this.

1

eypandabear Apr 16, 2026 +2

> if you combine the Ukraine contributions + defense budgets of most countries they're still typically under 5% of the country's GDP in total You can only ramp up military spending as quickly as arms industries can ramp up production. Otherwise you create a supply squeeze and drive up costs for marginal benefit.

2

Zealousideal-Cod-924 Apr 16, 2026 -12

They don't want the war won, they want Russia stalled and bleeding out in Ukraine so Putin can't move on to threatening other countries.

-12

Kobe-62Mavs-61 Apr 16, 2026 +26

I disagree, I think they absolutely want the war won, especially with the US taking an increasingly positive stance towards Russia with their policies.

26

lollypatrolly Apr 16, 2026 -5

> I think they absolutely want the war won Perhaps we want it, but not enough to spend significant cash getting the job done. This war is guaranteed to cost us trillions of dollars in the long run, and that's completely discounting rebuilding the country. The question is just are we prepared to spend those dollars today or are we putting it off.

-5

mauore11 Apr 16, 2026 -10

Don’t it seems like most social problems could be solved with a fraction of Military spending?

-10

Derikari Apr 16, 2026 +29

For Ukraine, most if not all social problems would benefit from not being invaded

29

irregular_caffeine Apr 16, 2026 +4

Military spending is a fraction of social spending in developed countries

4

Think_Discipline_90 Apr 16, 2026 +3

Yes, the world will be a much better place once that need is gone. But it's not. By far the cheapest option is deterrence, so even if it seems like a lot, spending less would be more expensive.

3

Mission-Cup9902 Apr 16, 2026 -17

Until you realize how much they’ve spent

-17

takeda64 Apr 16, 2026 +10

Stop talking as if Ukraine is some kind of freeloader. Now with US literally threatening to attack NATO, and the paradigm shift how wars are fought ironically Europe needs Ukraine more than Ukraine needs EU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4g8rp6aOgc

10

Practical-Spot-1803 Apr 16, 2026 -14

Naah, Russia spends 170 billions USD in the war each year. It will barely keep em alive.

-14

[deleted] Apr 15, 2026 -189

[removed]

-189

mmoore327 Apr 15, 2026 +28

I don’t know - seems to be being put to good use to me…

28

Shiftymennoknight Apr 15, 2026 +45

any evidence of this happening?

45

Cortezthecarpenter Apr 15, 2026 +10

Daddy Putin and his paid media shills say it’s happening so it must be.

10

Lexinoz Apr 15, 2026 +65

They've been keeping very diligent records of every single euro, and sharing everything with their newfound allies. Most of these are loans that they are very much intending to pay back,and it shows in all the records. In fact, most if not all their statistics about the war they've shared with the wider world has been corroborated by other European sources, so zero reason to believe they are acting like you very falsely claim.

65

xdmanxd99 Apr 15, 2026 -91

Total Lost/Stolen: As of September 2025, over 491,000 weapons (small arms, rifles) have been registered as lost or stolen in Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, according to Opendatabot. Loss Type: In 94% of cases, these weapons were lost, while 6% were reported stolen. Source of Weapons: More than half (58%) of the missing stock is foreign-made, while 17% is of domestic origin.

-91

Lexinoz Apr 15, 2026 +52

I've never been in a war, but I reckon every single battlefield is littered in lost or dropped equipment, seeing as every single soldier (on Ukraine's side at least) is fully equipped and has a tendency to not be able bring their dead friends' equipment back for repurpose. Not saying it isn't possible you're right, but I also reckon 500k small arms is barely a couple billion of all that money.

52

xdmanxd99 Apr 15, 2026 -54

Logistical Black Hole": A 2025 assessment indicated that a substantial portion of small-to-medium aid (like missiles and night-vision goggles) faced high rates of being unaccounted for between Polish staging areas and the frontline. Its more than small arms, tons of shit lost in Ukraine and much if the gear was caught in Africa.

-54

Shiftymennoknight Apr 15, 2026 +25

Any sources you want to share?

25

snowcow Apr 15, 2026 +11

Good luck with that

11

wintersdark Apr 16, 2026 +7

So, it looks like you copy/pasting this (or having AI write it) but either way, if you're going to make claims like this you have the source, so why don't you share that source? Or is it something embarrassing or ridiculously biased? Facebook post? Russia Today?

7

Neat-Rent7467 Apr 15, 2026 +6

Can you please provide sources for this?

6

ThePlanner Apr 15, 2026 +17

FWIW, the Pentagon cannot achieve a successful audit of its 3.8 trillion in assets and 4 trillion in liabilities. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-11-15/pentagon-failed-audit-shutdown-funding-12064619.html

17

xdmanxd99 Apr 15, 2026 -6

Ofc they can't that's why they went for Iraq, they couldn't find the lost funds. But there's a difference of stealing your own funds and donating funds and have them stolen.

-6

Ancient_Mud_2841 Apr 15, 2026 +26

I think you replied with this information by mistake. It is completely unrelated to your allegations against Zelensky (and “cronies”) stealing money via military aid fraud.

26

xdmanxd99 Apr 15, 2026 -22

Well not only zelenski and his buddies. Officers in the army are gonna help themselves too. Zelenaki gonna Munch on the "rebuild money", just like Balkans getting 10m euroes to improve infrastructure and what they make? A bus stop and 2 benches. And if you thought balkan corruption is something? Ukraine gonna put all the Balkans to shame

-22

grandmastermoth Apr 15, 2026 +22

Yet somehow the Ukrainias keep the Russians at bay despite being "corrupt" as you falsely claim. They must be using their fists because all the weapons got sold to Africa, right?

22

wintersdark Apr 16, 2026 +2

They're just that tough? Missile defense via rock throwing, and a mean right hook in the trenches? Who needs weapons when fighting a much larger nation.

2

Ancient_Mud_2841 Apr 15, 2026 +16

You have attempted to cherry pick data release by Ukraine and repurpose it to create the illusion of validity to your allegations. Now you are making more allegations and reaching further in your bag to make others think there is something there. But, in fact, your bag is empty.

16

Shiftymennoknight Apr 15, 2026 +14

Any sources you want to share?

14

Shiftymennoknight Apr 15, 2026 +10

Any sources you want to share?

10

NMe84 Apr 15, 2026 +8

I can type all of that too, doesn't make it true. Wanna share your actual source there, buddy? Or did Putin not give you one of those?

8

redredgreengreen1 Apr 15, 2026 +7

500k small arms going lost in 4 year of warfare honestly seems a little low. Kudos to Ukraine for keeping the number low. Though when I went to fact check that data, I found that a full half of that is since Sept. 2024. So they might be letting the side down recently, idk. Not sure what changed recently to account for that spike.

7

PomegranatePublic825 Apr 15, 2026 +15

Try harder. Must be great washing if they've fought Russia to this state

15

xdmanxd99 Apr 15, 2026 -10

I mean idc, at the end of the day its the Europeans that's gonna pay it 😂. Cause there is no shot Ukraine repays the loan.

-10

Shiftymennoknight Apr 15, 2026 +16

Why not? Just because you said so?

16

Araminal Apr 15, 2026 +6

Not repaying the loan is still cheaper than the whole of Europe mobilising troops against Russia. And it's cheaper than the current military operation against Iran.

6

Mysterious-Oil-7094 Apr 15, 2026 +817

Is dear leader going to try to block it?

817

Rasikko Apr 15, 2026 +468

He can't tell other countries what they can do with their money. I mean..he can but he can't stop them.

468

socialistrob Apr 15, 2026 +203

He could potentially block the transfer of US weapons to Ukraine but so far Trump hasn't done that and it would make a lot of American weapons manufacturers pretty upset. It would also cause European countries to speed up the transition away from American weapons as much as possible.

203

yvesp90 Apr 16, 2026 +140

This pledge comes with Europe First clause. The financing will be rejected if they don't buy European weapons with an asterisk for only dire need, Ukraine can then procure from other sources. Macron pushed for this and he pushed domestic weapon manufacturing to prepare for this. So the US industrial complex already took the hit

140

GabeIsGone Apr 16, 2026 +84

You know, at this point US Corporations have lost billions to tariffs, Twitter wars with allies, and this defense pivot. I haven’t heard any CEOs complaining. Are they really making more back in Trump Tax Breaks for the rich that they are larger than the aforementioned losses?

84

ion-deez-nuts Apr 16, 2026 +58

Trump increased the military budget by around $200 billion for 2026 and is planning on another $400B increase for 2027, so it's possible defense contractors haven't even noticed it.

58

yvesp90 Apr 16, 2026 +41

US producers already have enough trouble as is, they can't even produce enough and they're losing contracts with countries like Switzerland due to how they got used to abusing contracts in the US. There has been dissent (you could see it at Davos from Morgan for example) but the elite don't spit on one another in public. BlackRock already moved billions of investments outside of the country. Copros are neoliberals and the end goal is to grow beyond the state as you shrink the state. Corpos will move and blend in other countries. The US was just a host, they eat it, it dies, they find another host or expand. There's a reason why neoliberalism is compared to cancer. With BlackRock moving assets, I'd expect there are changes us plebs don't see

41

yellekc Apr 16, 2026 +12

Yeah, people think the MIC loves Trump. Maybe if he gets that 1.5T defense budget past Congress. But I cannot see that happening. That is insane. I guess some Trump class battleships will make up for losing Europe. All on your dime of course.

12

zztopsthetop Apr 16, 2026 +10

I can see loads of that money going to big tech & nepo-companies with a shiny ppt selling Wunderwaffe.

10

jimicus Apr 16, 2026 +6

I can’t help feeling a bit like you’ve been playing some RTS like age of empires for hours. Collected loads of resources and built up a massive army that you’re quietly confident should win the game. Then you send them off to destroy the enemy and discover the enemy fucked up royally and barely has an army at all. What was the point in all that preparation then?

6

socialistrob Apr 16, 2026 +2

Rheinmetall loves Trump. That's for sure.

2

The-Flying-Waffle Apr 16, 2026 +1

Those CEOs are investing in oil.

1

dattokyo Apr 16, 2026 +16

> He could potentially block the transfer of US weapons to Ukraine but so far Trump hasn't done that and it would make a lot of American weapons manufacturers pretty upset. Actually just recently, the US seemingly took what was supposed to be weapon deliveries for Ukraine, and decided to use them themselves for Iran instead. I think it's Finland that insisted on an official inquiry into whether the money sent to the US for Ukranian arms deliveries were actually being used for that?

16

MercantileReptile Apr 16, 2026 +12

> He could potentially block the transfer of US weapons to Ukraine Finland is currently running an audit of US weapons purchased with european money. Whether those weapons were actually delivered to Ukraine, [Link](https://kyivindependent.com/finland-pledges-to-check-us-weapons-make-it-to-ukraine/). There being good reason to do, makes US purchases suspect in the first place. So cutting out US weapon purchases is not the threat the US may think it is. Besides, the Continent produces Weapons as well. May as well support domestic industry, rather than the treacherous people messing with Trade, the World's energy, fertiliser and Greenland, threatening Canada, Cuba, abducting heads of state, etc. etc.

12

Azhz96 Apr 16, 2026 +15

This is good, nobody likes America anyway. At least not anymore.

15

-LongRodVanHugenDong Apr 16, 2026 -19

The Gulf states like America... Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia. A few people still. America is the only country that can offer protection in any meaningful sense. That's significantly more people then the EU.

-19

The_Follower1 Apr 16, 2026 +11

Except those countries have been getting closer to China, seemingly prompted by the current US administration. Japan and Korea have that new trade deal negotiations ongoing for example and even Taiwan seems to be playing nicer with China because of the collapsing (again, because of the US) world order no longer offering the same protection it used to.

11

ollie432 Apr 16, 2026 +6

The Gulf states ? The US moved all air defence in the region to Isreal, they got left to take Irans full retaliation strikes. Highly doubt they have much faith in the US at the moment.

6

-LongRodVanHugenDong Apr 16, 2026 -2

I wonder why they're allowing the United States to use their countries as bases of operations.... https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-saudi-arabia-mbs-gulf-war-uae-89f690b952fe28d3140c537b70fa5051 >WASHINGTON (AP) - Gulf allies of the United States, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are urging President Donald Trump to continue prosecuting the war against Iran, arguing that Tehran hasn't been weakened enough by the monthlong U.S.-led bombing campaign, according to U.S., Gulf and Israeli officials

-2

Glanea Apr 16, 2026 +3

Serious question: if any of those countries got into trouble with China, can you see Trump sending troops to help? Because it sure as hell looks like the answer to that is no. Previous US administrations, regardless of affiliation, were able to provide security guarantees to their allies because they understood that the US benefited massively from the world order that was established following WW2. Trump doesn't understand that, or rather, Trump actively wants to destroy that. He sees liberal democracy as a greater threat than authoritarian militaristic regimes.

3

-LongRodVanHugenDong Apr 18, 2026 +1

I'm unsure if he would help Taiwan, I personally hope we don't. I do think that he would send troops to help South Korea, Japan, Australia. Perhaps if Japan came to taiwan's defense we would too. Ultimately, those countries have no choice, as there is no better bet.

1

Tubafex Apr 16, 2026 +1

The whole farce is that America delivers the weapons that Europe has paid for, then pretends it to be American aid

1

ZumboPrime Apr 16, 2026 +1

> It would also cause European countries to speed up the transition away from American weapons as much as possible. This will make Putin happy. So then it's basically guaranteed he will.

1

socialistrob Apr 16, 2026 +2

> This will make Putin happy. So then it's basically guaranteed he will. A lot of Trump's foreign policy choices have aligned with Russia but not all of them. He hasn't cut Ukraine off from US weapons, he hasn't announced he will not honor article V, he has instituted sanctions on Russian energy and he attacked Venezuela and Iran which are two of Russia's closest allies. Right now the Russians are frustrated with Trump. When he was elected they thought he was going to basically hand them Europe but that hasn't materialized. I'm not going to try to predict what Trump will do because he has absolutely no strategy or even coherent thoughts and attention span but I don't think it's enough to say that he will do whatever is best for Russia. He may personally like Putin a lot and envy the way Putin runs Russia but I his policies haven't all lined up with Russian interests.

2

nonviolent_blackbelt Apr 16, 2026 +8

>He hasn't cut Ukraine off from US weapons Nah, he only redirected those already paid for weapons to the middle east. >he hasn't announced he will not honor article V He hinted it pretty strongly. But if he were to announce it outright, right now, people in the US might push back that he can't do that. If he announces it once Russia attacks, they will have far less time to react. >he has instituted sanctions on Russian energy At no cost to US, since US does not import energy from Russia >he attacked Venezuela and Iran which are two of Russia's closest allies. Arguably, Russia's closest allies are China and North Korea. I can totally see Putin sacrificing Iran for the higher oil price. Plus having the US in the Iranian quagmire assures Russia they are less likely to intervene in Ukraine and reassures China they are less likely to intervene in Taiwan.

8

noir_lord Apr 16, 2026 +1

> This will make Putin happy. So then it's basically guaranteed he will. Not sure how Europe been more self-sufficient in weapons equal to (broadly) and better than (in some areas, slightly behind in others) what we can buy off the Americans. If he could invade eastern Europe right now while we tool up *maybe* but he simply *can't*, he can't even deal with Ukraine which is a smaller country with a lower population (less than a third of Russia's) and he's going to take on a much bigger area with three times his population and ten times his GDP.

1

ZumboPrime Apr 16, 2026 +1

I don't think he cares too much about that compared to the result. America has historically been Russia's primary enemy and had the best military hardware, and by getting Europe to pivot away from American gear, it further weakens & alienates the USA.

1

noir_lord Apr 16, 2026 +1

To be fair, Historically Europe has been Russias greatest enemy, the US been their main opposition is mostly post WWII. Hell the UK has fought against Russia multiple times, so have the Japanese.

1

ZumboPrime Apr 16, 2026 +1

You're right, I should have been more specific. America has been Russia's primary enemy *for the past three quarters of a century*.

1

Mobile-Base7387 Apr 16, 2026 +3

why would he do that when he can just let them try to buy American weapons then "redirect" them?

3

DGlen Apr 15, 2026

He can try.

0

WeakTransportation37 Apr 15, 2026 +6

NATO is bolstering themselves to prepare for Trum ‘s exit. That might be his reaction to this since he can’t stop it

6

NMe84 Apr 15, 2026 +36

NATO isn't budgeting this, the individual countries are. So...no.

36

Sir_BugsAlot Apr 15, 2026 +4

This is good for the great doctor, because alot of the European money goes to buy equipment from US arms industry.

4

One-Engineering-4505 Apr 15, 2026 +42

It's stipulated that the majority must come from the European economic area or European free trade association members.

42

Old_Ladies Apr 16, 2026 +14

I don't know why so many Americans don't know that European countries have their own military industry.

14

LeafsWinBeforeIDie Apr 16, 2026 +2

Canada should be on that list. When canada starts building gripens after usmca/cusma c*** is over, ukraine will be very happy

2

celaconacr Apr 15, 2026 +32

This is quickly changing, Trump has long term materially damaged the weapons industry. USA has been shown to be unreliable and a potential threat to Europe. Greenland, weapon switch off comments, Putin support, Orban support, nonsense financial sanctions, Iran... USA also physically has a lot less equipment to supply due to he Iran war. Patriot missiles for example are now in short supply. Europe is heavily investing in its own defence industry and making sure they aren't reliant on the USA as a supplier. The rise of drone and anti drone technology really makes this a great time for them to invest as does co-operation with Ukraine. The way wars are fought is changing and the extremely expensive and low volume weapons don't seem as appealing as they were in the past.

32

WeAreElectricity Apr 16, 2026 +3

Krasnov

3

freeblowjobiffound Apr 16, 2026 +1

Lovely leader

1

JimTheSaint Apr 18, 2026 +1

Unless some of that money is from the us he cant

1

MoboCross Apr 16, 2026 -1

Nobody asked, we dont have to bring it up everywhere. Thanks

-1

WeakTransportation37 Apr 15, 2026 +141

Tank you Hungary for some hard-core voting. I’m assuming viktor did everything he could to create a win

141

Zieprus_ Apr 16, 2026 +110

NATO could massively benefit from all the knowledge and innovation Ukraine provides.

110

Ultra_Metal Apr 16, 2026 +25

Yep. Middle Eastern countries are already benefiting from it.

25

Think_Discipline_90 Apr 16, 2026 +21

It's funny how short attention spans people have sometimes. Europe has been investing in Ukraine production, not just aiding, for years now. We've shared training and intelligence. The ME deals are completely new and I'd suspect far smaller than the ones where Ukraine literally moves production outside their own country. EU Nato countries are already massively benefitting.

21

confuselele Apr 16, 2026 +3

Oh yes. And I mean, Ukraine is basically fighting against the thing (Russia) NATO was created for, without being involved. Perfect in a way.

3

Old_Ladies Apr 16, 2026 +1

And they have one of the largest militaries in the world.

1

ki-01000 Apr 16, 2026 +56

Another issue to be dealt with is Trump's den of spies leaking NATO intelligence straight to Kremlin. What a bizarre sentence to type out.

56

LeafsWinBeforeIDie Apr 16, 2026 +4

They could have known something about it but it'd be smarter to trust the russians won't do anything nefarious and shut down all those programs to protect the states. Right? /s

4

Defiant_Regular3738 Apr 16, 2026 +33

They’ll all be sucking up with all the drone advancements. Looks like he “has the cards” after all mfr.

33

[deleted] Apr 15, 2026 +67

[removed]

67

Nujabezia Apr 16, 2026 +10

I hope Ukraine extracts as much value as they can out of that aid package

10

HamLis Apr 15, 2026 +16

Turkey, Norway, Canada, UK? I don't think USA gonna chime in and EU countries gonna provide 90b.

16

Bob3130 Apr 16, 2026 +11

That’s because this is defensive support. Ukraine was attack and not the aggressor

11

qY81nNu Apr 16, 2026 +6

Ukraine might come out of this an economic EU drain for decade until they get back on their feet but a military juggernaut

6

bigmack1111 Apr 16, 2026 +2

Excellent

2

Alarming_Purpose4081 Apr 16, 2026 +5

all that is left is that not one cent is used buying US weapons

5

LeafsWinBeforeIDie Apr 16, 2026 +8

That is built in, thanks to the french. There are exceptions for dire need.

8

Remarkable_Beach_545 Apr 16, 2026 +4

Does anyone know more details? Where the money is coming from, who they're purchasing from? When first deliveries expected?

4

tresslessone Apr 16, 2026 +1

You sound like Dom from Ukraine: The Latest. And rightfully so mind you, these pledges are great but like you I wonder what it all means concretely.

1

nonviolent_blackbelt Apr 16, 2026 +1

That is all information Russia would just love to know, so I'm not surprised they are not quoting it in the press release.

1

Stennan Apr 16, 2026 +1

I know Rutte wants to do this under the NATO umbrella, but when the (couch loving VP?) / "Leader of the free world" touts the end of aid to Ukraine as his biggest foreign policy achievement, I have a hard time seeing this as a win for NATO.

1

Puiucs Apr 16, 2026 +1

it's a win for NATO in europe. trump can go diddle another child.

1

Prs_Shinra Apr 16, 2026 +1

Nato or Europe?

1

Puiucs Apr 16, 2026 +1

seeing as Trump wants out of NATO, i would say that the answer is yes.

1

pirategirljess Apr 17, 2026 +1

pledge and actually get two different things

1

JimTheSaint Apr 18, 2026 +1

That's great news

1

[deleted] Apr 15, 2026

[deleted]

0

CGI_OCD Apr 15, 2026 +5

Maybe because the European Union's GDP is estimated to be over $19 trillion in 2024–2025, representing roughly one-sixth of the global economy, making it the world's second-largest economy. So enough to stack up that NATO Budget as intended. Just a wild guess of course.

5

grandmastermoth Apr 15, 2026 +5

Uh, NATO budget? If you really want to know look up their public info, don't post on listnook

5

B1ueRogue Apr 16, 2026 +1

I hope to god it's not US weapons stop funding the US

1

HoneyBadger552 Apr 16, 2026

running this thing on a shoe string budget. its the satellite and intel thats a trouble spot when the US abandons Ukraine. sad to see it but mango will do it

0

NATO Allies Pledge $60 Billion in Military Aid to Ukraine for 2026

💬 Send a Message

137 Comments