The UK has already contributed over £12 billion in support to Ukraine since 2022, making it one of the largest European donors. This additional £2.2 billion isn't an 'appetizer' but part of sustained, long-term support.
Instead of dismissing allies' contributions, perhaps consider that effective support for Ukraine requires many nations doing what they can within their means (and their GDP). The UK consistently steps up, and every contribution strengthens Ukraine's position."
Furthermore, the $2.85 billion pledge represents approximately 5% of the UK's annual defense budget (which is roughly £50-55 billion).
Your comments are not very constructive or informed about the realities of international aid. When measured proportionally against national capabilities, this is a substantial commitment that will fund critical defense systems Ukraine needs.
Dismissing allies' contributions doesn't help Ukraine - recognizing and encouraging sustained support does.
Sabotage Russian petroleum production and refinery operations then. Done properly, it will force shutting of supply wells for years, ending the conflict.
As much as I'm behind Norway in this little spat, I think Putin's Arctic fleet might smell an opportunity to mess with Norway a bit more, and then who will they beg for help?
Not sure if you follow the news, but the US aren't considered as allies (or dependable, or even stable) by anyone right now. Nobody is happy about it, of course, but it's not like anyone is counting on the US anymore, for better or worse.
It would be worse for the United States dollar, probably. The D in USD historically could’ve been associated with “Diplomacy”— the military was willing and able to globally enforce the value of the US Dollar by favoring countries that willingly supported its hegemony.
When no one relies upon us any more, what makes our dollars and debts so special? What’s to stop everyone from taking their ball and going to play somewhere else? From calling in debts, from reneging on debts to us, from accepting our dollars, from providing land for military bases, from honoring our passports… because that is what happens to nearly every other country not at the Top.
The global order currently only works in our favor because we’re on top. We are the ones who lose the most when other countries don’t need us, not the other way around.
Europe has its own industry, but countries have made sure that they buy a significant amount of weapons from the US to keep them happy. That limits the size of the EU industry.
There have been many stories of EU countries choosing the American alternative, even if it was more expensive. In return, they expected some goodwill from US.
So when you read stories about EU countries not spending enough, consider that a large part of what they do spend goes to the US to appease them.
That won't happen because of Norway's immense oil and gas supply and good relations. If Russia manages to take Norway, USA will be at an incredible disadvantage due to the immense oil and gas reserves on the coastline in addition to the oil-fund. If anything USA will annex Norway.
Incomplete list of places USA bully, attacks or insults: Canada, EU, Ukraine, Mexico.
Complete list of countries USA supports, admires and treats nicely: Russia.
If Russia attack Norway, USA may try to make Norway a colony. Or use to situation to mock Norway, get their oil and then sell them to Russia once they have something.
But Trump loves Putin and is scared of him, so I can see him to make a "deal" and give him Norway with its oil in exchange of something purely ego stroking.
The oil lasts longer than Trump's presidency so hopefully the US will not become a dictatorship within that time and will be able to fix this shit before everything turns to hell.
Jeffries, the top democrat in the house, is too busy with promoting his book and anyway has decided it’s all in gods hands now. He had one stop in Oakland on Feb 20, and is scheduled again on March 7.
Gee whiz good thing there’s nothing else pressing going on to get in the way of his book tour stops! /s
Sure once you have seen a couple of skits from the Jackass crew you shouldn't be surprised anymore, you know what their shtick is, nonetheless everyone is always surprised and tunes in for the next unbelievable episode of mayhem.
Maybe terms "democrats" and "republicans" (and "maga") are all outdated and imprecise, and any innovation capable of improving the country would come from outside those adjectives.
If you look at financial disclosures of both democrats and republicans, tracked at quiverquant.com, you too might be skeptical of trusting either historical party.
Right now democrats are the only established group of people in the US with good western values and that are of sufficient size that can turn this shit around.
Their original choice was Biden who had to step down because Democrat voters didnt want him so the Democrat leadership got a different candidate instead holding a primary.
I am guessing that ship sailed for at least 2 years. Probably more as people voted for this with open eyes so the people probably approve. Unless the economy tanks this year.
It won't happen but I think a centrist party which took the best from Republican and Democrat platforms and completely avoided histrionics, focusing entirely on rational solutions to our ongoing problems, could be very attractive to a wide range of voters in the US.
Yes what we need is a new party formed from the diet versions of the people in the other parties. Of course this means they’ll be capitalists with imperialist goals so they’re not going to win on any topic that matters currently.
And this is why we "got Trump again". The inability on the left to reason with clear allies in it's own coalition was a big part of the voter turnout problem. Yes, there are jews, even zionist ones, in power within the democratic aparatus. There are capitalist democrats. Even billionaires. And every one of them wanted to work with you to prevent this from happening, but you took your toys and went home instead reasoning that it was more important to punish your allies than keep your actual enemies out of power.
Because at the end of the day this is what you wanted. The ability to say "Dems won't be fixing this problem" is more important to you than fixing the problem.
I've voted D in every election of my life, including Biden and Harris. Don't put this on me.
Dems had their chance. They propped up a barely functioning, senile old man to respond to Republicans' threats, and he failed to do anything to stop what was coming (eg put Trump and the other Jan 6 ringleaders in jail, expand the Supreme Court, DC and PR statehood, literally anything).
Dems just aren't up to the task.
> Because at the end of the day this is what you wanted. The ability to say "Dems won't be fixing this problem" is more important to you than fixing the problem.
This is so far out of line, an appropriate reply would rightly get me removed from HN.
This is a very common human reaction.
When things don't change quickly enough, a more radical approach ends up being taken even though it almost never is the right approach.
It's the same reason why people don't like Java.
It's Old, verbose and stable, but who wants that.
That's why people like Javascript, but at the end of the day, Java is the best.
Stable and boring and slow politics is the good politics. Not this shit that's happening right now.
This has been the Dem strategy for my entire life, yes. You are seeing the outcome of this strategy now. I argue it is not yielding desirable results, and they should try something else.
The world is complicated and things take time. The current HORRIBLE alternative is far worse than the undesirable results from the Dem strategy your entire life.
> Yes, obviously. I'm saying the current situation is partly the result of Dems like Biden not taking action to prevent it.
That statement is tautological (literally everything happens because something didn't prevent it). It's also not consistent with your much less considered verbiage above that somehow this was "all (not partly) on Democrats".
> It's also not consistent with your much less considered verbiage above that somehow this was "all (not partly) on Democrats".
I didn't say that. You should reply to what I am actually saying, not whatever quotes you made up.
> That statement is tautological (literally everything happens because something didn't prevent it).
One of the jobs of a politician is to protect the country from its enemies. Dems failed to do that, despite ample warning and opportunity. This demonstrates what I said: they are not up to the task of rescuing the US.
> I argue it is not yielding desirable results, and they should try something else.
You actually aren't arguing that. You're just saying the first bit. You need to detail "something else", otherwise you're just throwing bombs with no value to anything except your ego.
I listed three concrete actions Dems could have taken or attempted, and didn't. You should try actually reading the posts you're responding to. You're angry at someone who isn't me.
> a more radical approach ends up being taken even though it almost never is the right approach.
To be clearer: a more radical approach is being taken. And some people on the left genuinely prefer the situation to a Harris administration. There was never a constituency for... whatever it is the current argument is demanding[1]. It wasn't on the menu, so the next best thing is humiliation for the other members of the coalition.
[1] The fact that the framing is "Biden bad" and not "Biden should have X" is telling!
There were many people who felt backstabbed under Biden. Their world was turned upside down and majority of democrats stayed quiet. These people didn’t vote not because they wanted to punish their allies, but because they are still in shock. This is not new for them.
And now majority of democrats are seeing their world turn upside down too. Maybe this will eventually unite and organize the left, maybe not. But Biden has done too much damage to democrats.
"I agree," he wrote in response to a post from a right-wing political commentator saying "it's time" for the U.S. to leave NATO and the U.N.