Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Razgovory]

If they are less likely to fight, then they are less likely they are to want to pay for the means to fight.

Any data to back up that assertion?

No, but it does seem like common sense.

[Zoupa]

Cool cool. So we're going with "vibes".

[Razgovory]

Cool cool. So we're going with "vibes".

While many Europeans say they want Ukraine to win, and think that it is not getting enough aid to do so, few back increasing their national contributions

% who say they want Ukraine to win, and care a great deal or fair amount that it does so

Britain 67
 
France 50

Italy 34

Spain 57

% who say they think current levels of aid to Ukraine are not enough to prevent the Russians from winning

Britain 62

France63

Italy 57

Spain 61
% who say their country should increase the support it is giving to Ukraine

Britain 24

France 17

Italy 9

Spain 18

YouGov 2022
Britain: 18-19 February 2025 / Other countries: 25 February - 4 March 2025

https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/51741-where-does-western-europe-stand-on-ukraine-donald-trump-and-national-defence?utm_source=website_article&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=51741

So a little more than vibes.  It does seem that plurality of Western Europeans would support increasing defense spending, but are little iffy on how to get the funding.

[Sheilbh]

Although worth pointing out UK is contributing more on military (and other aid) as a proportion of GDP than the US - and has committed to maintaining at least current levels. France is very shady on what they give but I think they're probably at a similar level (at least if you include their share of EU aid.

There's a fair criticism of vibes but there has also been very substantial aid, which is ongoing, from across Europe.

Iffy on funding is fair but European countries don't have the dollar - the EU could start issuing common debt which would be transformative for those (or at least Eurozone) countries. Various countries and the EU could start thinking maybe lots of quasi-constitutional rules about fiscal policy wasn't a good idea. But fundamentally policies in Europe cost money that need to be paid for either with taxes, spending cuts or debt (for which there is risk). FWIW I think the absence of that grounding in American is part of the problem for want of a better word in American politics recently.

[Razgovory]

My understanding is the much of the Aid Europe sends is financial aid.  While that is useful, it can't win the war.  What Ukraine needs is military equipment and supplies.  Much of this can't simply be bought, it requires the building of unprofitable factories, something that Europe has dragged it's feet on.  Building those factories would take time, and I don't know how much time Ukraine as left.

Anyway, Western Europe wants Ukraine to win, believes that current aid is insufficient, but sending more aid is quite unpopular.  That appears to be a conundrum.  

[The Brain]

We are familiar with the US line that Europe should just give up on Ukraine. We choose to ignore it.

[grumbler]

We are familiar with the US line that Europe should just give up on Ukraine. We choose to ignore it.

But you also don't want to give more aid to Ukraine, so you are also choosing to ignore the truth that Ukraine cannot win without more support.

[The Brain]

We are familiar with the US line that Europe should just give up on Ukraine. We choose to ignore it.

But you also don't want to give more aid to Ukraine, so you are also choosing to ignore the truth that Ukraine cannot win without more support.

Yeah yeah, we should let Russia take Ukraine. We get it.

[grumbler]

We are familiar with the US line that Europe should just give up on Ukraine. We choose to ignore it.

But you also don't want to give more aid to Ukraine, so you are also choosing to ignore the truth that Ukraine cannot win without more support.

Yeah yeah, we should let Russia take Ukraine. We get it.

Why should you let Russia take Ukraine? That doesn't sound very wise.

[The Brain]

We are familiar with the US line that Europe should just give up on Ukraine. We choose to ignore it.

But you also don't want to give more aid to Ukraine, so you are also choosing to ignore the truth that Ukraine cannot win without more support.

Yeah yeah, we should let Russia take Ukraine. We get it.

Why should you let Russia take Ukraine? That doesn't sound very wise.

Your idea that European countries should base critical national security decisions on poll numbers is bizarre.

[Tamas]

Didn't take much effort from Trump and co. to make this an Americans vs. Europeans argument even here, did it? A year more of him and the dismantling of the 80-years old alliance will be complete and irreversible.

[The Minsky Moment]

Two notes on this that are slightly interesting. It prompted a set of similar debates and resolutions around the country which overwhelmingly followed Oxford's lead - and also a series of debates and resolutions in universities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand which went the other way.

That story always stuck with me because I happened to visit the Oxford Union in 1990, where I saw Jacob Rees-Mogg speak. Of course I had no idea what his future would be, but the name "Rees-Mogg" stuck in my brain and proved impossible to dislodge.  It was precisely the kind of name one expects to encounter at Oxford and nowhere else.  The visit also happened to coincide with Thatcher's fall, so I got exposure to the lively tabloid scene as well.

[The Minsky Moment]

There was a piece I read and found really interesting from a Singaporean analyst (as ever bracingly realist and honest take) who basically said the strategy that makes sense for Europe if it feels America is an opponent is to reconcile with Russia and build closer ties with China. Obviously that fucks Ukraine (and any argument about values). If the priority is Ukraine and confronting Russia then I think that means working with the Americans and Chinese as best we can to try to sway them from Russia (again, not great from a values perspective).

I don't think that works; with an isolationist or hostile America, Russia will inevitably seek to destabilize the EU, dividing Europe, weakening the individual states, and picking off the stragglers on its periphery.

The realist play is to resist and contain Russia on the one hand, while aligning with the PRC on the other and trying to water down China's alignment with Russia.  The EU doesn't really have a dog to hunt in the Pacific fight.  And if Trump really does follow through on a US-Russia alignment, it reduces the value of Russia to China as a strategic partner that can distract US attention.

[The Minsky Moment]

My understanding is the much of the Aid Europe sends is financial aid.  While that is useful, it can't win the war. 

It's a war of attrition and endurance.  I think the emphasis placed in the press and on the reddits on high end military equipment is misplaced.  Yes, advanced systems like Himars and the Patriots are great and Ukraine will badly miss them. But the fundamental Russian challenge is that they have never deployed a force capable of subjugating Ukraine and it seems unlikely they will ever do so.  Strong financial backing can keep Ukraine in the fight, with or without the high-end US systems.  And yes there is still a market for all sorts of important military equipment like drones, RPGs etc. Ukraine has also used and can continue to use outside financial support to build out its own production.

[grumbler]

We are familiar with the US line that Europe should just give up on Ukraine. We choose to ignore it.

But you also don't want to give more aid to Ukraine, so you are also choosing to ignore the truth that Ukraine cannot win without more support.

Yeah yeah, we should let Russia take Ukraine. We get it.

Why should you let Russia take Ukraine? That doesn't sound very wise.

Your idea that European countries should base critical national security decisions on poll numbers is bizarre.

The strawman fallacy is alive and well in Sweden, I see.