Support NeoGAF

[thefool]

The statures of NATO are not "liberal propaganda".
That commitment is merely political, not enforced by law or any NATO stature.
And NATO does not have mechanisms to expel a country from it's ranks, much less for something that is not a binding law.

Once again you distort what I posted. I made no mention of Nato statutes as "liberal propaganda", instead I characterized your rambling of the administration ties with russia as such. As an european I'm more worried about spain's ties with china and their latest meeting with drug traffickers "in defense for democracy".

As for legal enforcement, this is why my og post is a very uncomplicated opinion, I defend they should be kicked out if they don't want to commit to the hague agreement. However, if you want to discuss legality, they could be accussed of "material breach" and be suspended.

I'm kindly asking you to stop mischaracterizing what I post or else:

 

[Bojji]

Probably to increase sales to the US military industrial complex.
Funny thing is that with Trump threatening Europe countries, most have canceled contracts for US purchases and are instead buying European.

He has surprised Pikachu face over that.

 

[winjer]

Once again you distord what I posted. I made no mention of Nato statutes as "liberal propaganda", instead I characterized your rambling of the administration ties with russia as such. As an european I'm more worried about spain's ties with china and their latest meeting with drug traffickers "in defense for democracy".

Then explain why Trump removed support for Ukraine, when the USA had a written agreement to protect Ukraine in case of a Russian invasion.
Why was Russia one of the few countries to not have an increase in tariffs.
Why is Trump spent years insulting EU leaders, but constantly praising Putin.
JD Vance, Trump's Vice President, just wen to Hungary to support Orbans campaign.
It's very obvious the Trump administration has close ties with several Russian officials. You just don't want to see it.

All countries have ties with China, even the USA. FFS, Trump's defense plan just lowered the ranking of China's threat.

And no I didn't misrepresent you. I quoted you exactly on and only about the Spain % spending. Nothing more.

Post in thread 'Monitoring the situation in Iran'

Apr 24, 2026

If Spain doesn't commit to the 5% they should be kicked out.

The current NATO spending minimum is still 2%. It will only rise to 5% in 2035. Though Spain is still bellow both.
But the reason why there is this rumor about kicking out Spain is not due to it's spending, it's due to not allowing the USA to use Spanish bases to support the war in Iran.

• winjer

• 

As for legal enforcement, this is why my og post is a very uncomplicated opinion, I defend they should be kicked out if they don't want to commit to the hague agreement. However, if you want to discuss legality, they could be accussed of "material branch" and be suspended.

I'm kindly asking you to stop mischaracterizing what I post or else:

Your opinion is not a basis for NATO's law or regulation. Get over yourself.

 

[Bojji]

Then explain why Trump removed support for Ukraine, when the USA had a written agreement to protect Ukraine in case of a Russian invasion.
Why was Russia one of the few countries to not have an increase in tariffs.
Why is Trump spent years insulting EU leaders, but constantly praising Putin.
JD Vance, Trump's Vice President, just wen to Hungary to support Orbans campaign.
It's very obvious the Trump administration has close ties with several Russian officials. You just don't want to see it.

All countries have ties with China, even the USA. FFS, Trump's defense plan just lowered the ranking of China's threat.



Your opinion is not a basis for NATO's law or regulation. Get over yourself.

USA support for Ukraine dropped to zero around March of last year.

And trump is talking about how he helped Ukraine, fucking laughable...

 

[thefool]

Then explain why Trump removed support for Ukraine, when the USA had a written agreement to protect Ukraine in case of a Russian invasion.
Why was Russia one of the few countries to not have an increase in tariffs.
Why is Trump spent years insulting EU leaders, but constantly praising Putin.
JD Vance, Trump's Vice President, just wen to Hungary to support Orbans campaign.
It's very obvious the Trump administration has close ties with several Russian officials. You just don't want to see it.

All countries have ties with China, even the USA. FFS, Trump's defense plan just lowered the ranking of China's threat.

Who was the president of the USA when Russia invaded Ukraine? Who was the president of the USA when Russia annexed Crimea? Let's stick with facts instead of your emotions.

Your opinion is not a basis for NATO's law or regulation. Get over yourself.

That is fair and why I'm posting about it on a videogame forum. And in my defense I never implied it was.

 

[winjer]

Who was the president of the USA when Russia invaded Ukraine? Who was the president of the USA when Russia annexed Crimea? Let's stick with facts instead of your emotions.

The President of the USA didn't invade Ukraine, that was Putin. But Biden did send a ton of old equipment to help out. And Intel assistence.
All of that which was cut off by Trump.

That is fair and why I'm posting about it on a videogame forum. And in my defense I never implied it was.

But somehow it was the basis for you to insult me.

 

[AJUMP23]

Yall are going to get this thread locked.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

If Spain doesn't commit to the 5% they should be kicked out.

Spain will never commit. Jsut like a lot of other countries. All these deadlines and such like - "by 2035 etc" will never be reached. Beacasue they don't expect accountability. Let's say they won't reach 5% by 2035. Now what? "We will do it next time for sure?". They failed to reach proper % even with previous deadlines.

The most hilarious part is that some - well it is usually europo..eans - who defending that by saying that "sure they did not commit, sure they did not open the airspace but pls forgive them they will do it next time for sure". It is crazy how blind some people are. Granted a lot of people still believe that Iran is winning and so it is not surprsing.

Europe as a continent is heavily brainwashed. Like they don't even live in reality. Living in Europe, it is basically like living in a blue state where there is only CNN network.

I always compare it to the soviet union and in a lot ways it is as I lived through soviet legacy and Europe. In USSR people believed that USA would die in the next 5 years and believed that USSR did not have any crime (because the state media never reported crime through big channels - at best you could get some small notes in the local newspaper). Europe is exactly the same at this point (even with "USA will die soon and EU will strive and will become stronger" belief). Especially western one. The difference is that USSR had cleaner streets lol

 

[thefool]

Yall are going to get this thread locked.

Mate, I posted a very simple post (following news about Spain possible suspension) which was hijacked by someone who wanted to push political talking points and hoaxes.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yall are going to get this thread locked.

Every time someone tries to hijack this thread and crash it into a tall building

Followed immediately by

 

[winjer]

Spain will never commit. Jsut like a lot of other countries. All these deadlines and such like - "by 2035 etc" will never be reached. Beacasue they don't expect accountability. Let's say they won't reach 5% by 2035. Now what? "We will do it next time for sure?". They failed to reach proper % even with previous deadlines.

The most hilarious part is that some - well it is usually europo..eans - who defending that by saying that "sure they did not commit, sure they did not open the airspace but pls forgive them they will do it next time for sure". It is crazy how blind some people are. Granted a lot of people still believe that Iran is winning and so it is not surprsing.

Europe as a continent is heavily brainwashed. Like they don't even live in reality. Living in Europe, it is basically like living in a blue state where there is only CNN network.

I always compare it to the soviet union and in a lot ways it is as I lived through soviet legacy and Europe. In USSR people believed that USA would die in the next 5 years and believed that USSR did not have any crime (because the state media never reported crime through big channels - at best you could get some small notes in the local newspaper). Europe is exactly the same at this point (even with USA will die soon and EU will strive and will become stronger belief). Especially western one. The difference is that USSR had cleaner streets lol

Spain is already set to spend 2% of GDP in 2026. So they are already increasing spending.
And this is how much NATO countries will spend in 2026. As you can see, plenty of EU countries are spending well above the 2% NATO commitment target. Some are even ahead of the USA.

NATO Spending by Country 2026

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So anyways it feels like we're building up to something one way or the other. It's Iran's move at the moment, they only have a finite amount of time until they have to turn off the oil wells and the way oil wells work, turning them off is essentially catastrophic failure which cannot be easily recovered from and also they are getting basically zero revenue which means the IRGC and the Basij rank and file aren't getting paid

I'm ready for the climax of this story, it feels like I've been waiting forever

 

[Baemono]

And in my defense I never implied it was.

That's because you need to spend more than 5% to imply it

 

[BlackTron]

Spain is not in cahoots with enemies of the west. They just don't want to get involved in another forever war created by the USA. Truth be told, no one wants that and that is why no one has joined in, be it from the EU or other regions of the globe.
The country that is in cahoots with enemies of the west is the current US administration, that is supporting Russian against Ukraine.
Russia, which is a declared ally of Iran. Who is supplying satellite Intel and military assistance.

Stop making sense!

 

[AJUMP23]

Remember guys you can say I disagree but I don't want to get the thread locked. We should move on.

Also nations do not have friends they have interest. If interest do not align it would be against their own goals to help in that area.

 

[BlackTron]

Also nations do not have friends they have interest.

This comes off as a spin and ultimately depends on semantics of "friend", but if we let it stand, then we have to say nations also don't have enemies. Like "friend", it's just a label we use for how well your interests align or not.

If we allow friend, enemy or neutral to take on the definition of how well your interests align -then it seems nations CAN be friends!

There are probably nations with a bigger interest in helping with Iran, than there was to help us after 911, when they actually showed up. What's the difference? (Rhetorical question)

 

[AJUMP23]

This comes off as a spin and ultimately depends on semantics of "friend", but if we let it stand, then we have to say nations also don't have enemies. Like "friend", it's just a label we use for how well your interests align or not.

If we allow friend, enemy or neutral to take on the definition of how well your interests align -then it seems nations CAN be friends!

There are probably nations with a bigger interest in helping with Iran, than there was to help us after 911, when they actually showed up. What's the difference? (Rhetorical question)

The better a relationship the more likely they have multiple interest that align. I mean China, Russia, and others are not historically aligned countries, but they do have major interest in dismantling the US control of trade based on the dollar. It would collapse the US economy and make the US actually deal with the inflation they have created. This goal aligns them in many ways that they would not normally be aligned. But that could shift, I think there is a way to bring Russia back into to dollar trade when the Ukraine war is over. But most of the world aligns with the west on trade do to just the general historical dominance of US dollar trade. I mean the whole EU was essentially created to compete with US dollar trade.

 

[Baemono]

Also nations do not have friends they have interest.

I'm not sure it's true. Belgim, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are pretty "friends", same as Cyprus and Greece, or Azerbaijan and Turkey. There are of course historical reasons behind it but it can exist.

 

[AJUMP23]

I'm not sure it's true. Belgim, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are pretty "friends", same as Cyprus and Greece, or Azerbaijan and Turkey. There are of course historical reasons behind it but it can exist.

favored nation status. They benefit from the relationship and share many mutual interest. The relationship is based on historical interests aligning.

 

[BlackTron]

The better a relationship the more likely they have multiple interest that align. I mean China, Russia, and others are not historically aligned countries, but they do have major interest in dismantling the US control of trade based on the dollar. It would collapse the US economy and make the US actually deal with the inflation they have created. This goal aligns them in many ways that they would not normally be aligned. But that could shift, I think there is a way to bring Russia back into to dollar trade when the Ukraine war is over. But most of the world aligns with the west on trade do to just the general historical dominance of US dollar trade. I mean the whole EU was essentially created to compete with US dollar trade.

Yeah, there's definitely a "tightrope walk" uneasy truce that leaders have to navigate often, and "enemy of my enemy is my friend" type aspects. I just don't like pushing away allies just to lean on "hey, their interests didn't align today, not my fault" type rhetoric. USA's success is by bypassing this cynical pattern and leading with reliable rules and standards (whether it's convenient or not). Of course those days appear to be over, we can now act however we want and throw out a whataboutism how other nations always did it, so we're covered.

 

[BlackTron]

favored nation status. They benefit from the relationship and share many mutual interest. The relationship is based on historical interests aligning.

Good explanation of why they are friends.

 

[lachesis]

The clock is ticking, Iran. Tick tock. Iran will certainly not voluntarily allow their oil production to be "shut-in", so whatever's going to happen, it will happen soon

Perhaps Iran's running out of space to store crude oil - and using this ship as some sort of floating stoarge.

Once Iran can't store the crude oil, they'll have to shut down the oil wells. And when those wells are shut down extensive period of time, I hear the water starts get built up into the mix and create whole bunch of issues that can be permanent or at least not ecomoical to use the whole thing. I am not sure how much it applies to Iran's wells, but it sounds like they really do have to keep the wells running, not for selling, but to keep the oil reserve not tanished.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I'm not sure it's true. Belgim, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are pretty "friends", same as Cyprus and Greece, or Azerbaijan and Turkey. There are of course historical reasons behind it but it can exist.

The moment any of those countries take a stance that is not agreeable by others - they will stop being "friends". They are close due to political situation but "friends" is not a definition you can apply to countries. It is like saying that ethnic groups within Germany are friends despite years of wars between each other. It is all politics, external influence and so on. As long as they share common goals - they are "friends".

Perhaps Iran's running out of space to store crude oil - and using this ship as some sort of floating stoarge.

Once Iran can't store the crude oil, they'll have to shut down the oil wells. And when those wells are shut down extensive period of time, I hear the water starts get built up into the mix and create whole bunch of issues that can be permanent or at least not ecomoical to use the whole thing. I am not sure how much it applies to Iran's wells, but it sounds like they really do have to keep the wells running, not for selling, but to keep the oil reserve not tanished.

Probably. It is probably the similar situation as with Russia where they can't really close the oil "wells", because closing it might lead to damage, filling it with water and such. Unlike Russia though, Iran has its easier with their drilling. Blockade has been mighty effective.

 

[Brazen]

Then explain why Trump removed support for Ukraine, when the USA had a written agreement to protect Ukraine in case of a Russian invasion.
Why was Russia one of the few countries to not have an increase in tariffs.
Why is Trump spent years insulting EU leaders, but constantly praising Putin.
JD Vance, Trump's Vice President, just wen to Hungary to support Orbans campaign.
It's very obvious the Trump administration has close ties with several Russian officials. You just don't want to see it.

All countries have ties with China, even the USA. FFS, Trump's defense plan just lowered the ranking of China's threat.

And no I didn't misrepresent you. I quoted you exactly on and only about the Spain % spending. Nothing more.

Post in thread 'Monitoring the situation in Iran'

Apr 24, 2026

If Spain doesn't commit to the 5% they should be kicked out.

The current NATO spending minimum is still 2%. It will only rise to 5% in 2035. Though Spain is still bellow both.
But the reason why there is this rumor about kicking out Spain is not due to it's spending, it's due to not allowing the USA to use Spanish bases to support the war in Iran.

• winjer

• 

Your opinion is not a basis for NATO's law or regulation. Get over yourself.

If it wasn't for Trump's first administration Ukraine wouldn't even have a defense in 2022.
Know why you tell your friends their negatives? So they improve.
Further tariffs on Russia is like adding paper to a wood-log fire to keep it going. Current sanctions on Russia have reduced imports to like 3-4 billion annually. Some "friend" the US is to Russia, especially when compared to other countries that trade with them.

 

[winjer]

If it wasn't for Trump's first administration Ukraine wouldn't even have a defense in 2022.
Know why you tell your friends their negatives? So they improve.
Further tariffs on Russia is like adding paper to a wood-log fire to keep it going. Current sanctions on Russia have reduced imports to like 3-4 billion annually. Some "friend" the US is to Russia, especially when compared to other countries that trade with them.

Trump did nothing in his first term for Ukraine. Don't try to make stuff up.

 

[Brazen]

Did trump approve the defense of ukraine before 2022?

Yes, the Trump administration approved the sale of lethal, defensive aid to Ukraine before 2022, notably authorizing the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles in 2018, which was a reversal of the Obama administration's policy. While Trump signed multiple aid bills, he also faced scrutiny for temporarily freezing aid in 2019, according to and the.
Center for Public Integrity +2
Key Actions and Details:

• Lethal Aid Approval: In December 2017, the Trump administration officially approved the first provision of lethal weapons, including Javelin missiles, to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian-backed separatists.
• Aid Packages: Throughout his term, Trump signed into law several spending bills that authorized millions in Defense Department funding for Ukraine's military.
• 2019 Freeze: In 2019, the Trump administration did withhold nearly $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine. This aid was released in September 2019 after a whistleblower complaint was made, as described in the and the.
• Policy Shift: Unlike the Obama administration, which provided non-lethal aid, the Trump administration's decision to supply lethal weapons was considered a significant shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, noted in.
  Center for Public Integrity +3

Despite these actions, Trump's overall policy toward Ukraine was complex and included skepticism toward providing foreign aid, often demanding that European allies contribute more.
The House of Commons Library +4

 

[winjer]

Did trump approve the defense of ukraine before 2022?

Yes, the Trump administration approved the sale of lethal, defensive aid to Ukraine before 2022, notably authorizing the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles in 2018, which was a reversal of the Obama administration's policy. While Trump signed multiple aid bills, he also faced scrutiny for temporarily freezing aid in 2019, according to and the.
Center for Public Integrity +2
Key Actions and Details:

• Lethal Aid Approval: In December 2017, the Trump administration officially approved the first provision of lethal weapons, including Javelin missiles, to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian-backed separatists.
• Aid Packages: Throughout his term, Trump signed into law several spending bills that authorized millions in Defense Department funding for Ukraine's military.
• 2019 Freeze: In 2019, the Trump administration did withhold nearly $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine. This aid was released in September 2019 after a whistleblower complaint was made, as described in the and the.
• Policy Shift: Unlike the Obama administration, which provided non-lethal aid, the Trump administration's decision to supply lethal weapons was considered a significant shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, noted in.
  Center for Public Integrity +3

Despite these actions, Trump's overall policy toward Ukraine was complex and included skepticism toward providing foreign aid, often demanding that European allies contribute more.
The House of Commons Library +4

The aid packges you speak of were initiated by Congress and by institutional US policy, such as National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) Funding via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Not by Trump and his administration. So the best you can say about his first term is that he didn't block aid.
Now compare the aid that was given during the first term of the Trump administration, which was around 2.5B. During the Biden administration the US provided 150B+. And then during the second term, Trump cut off aid to Ukraine, including sharing satellite Intel that was crucial.
And recently Trump sent JD Vance to campaign for Orban. So the net score for Trump in regards for Ukraine assistance is very, very negative.

 

[Brazen]

Was it congress or trump that decided the sale of weapons to ukraine?

The Trump administration officially approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, beginning in December 2017. While Congress authorized the foreign aid and funds, the decision to approve the export license for lethal arms was a executive branch policy shift from the Obama administration.
Atlantic Council +2
Key details regarding the decision:

• Approval Authority: The U.S. State Department, under the Trump administration, authorized the sale of sniper systems and subsequently Javelin missiles, marking a policy shift to directly supply lethal defense hardware.
• Congressional Role: Congress authorized the funds and supported the policy, but the administration held the power to approve the actual transfer.
• Policy Shift: This action overturned the previous policy of the Obama administration, which had refrained from providing lethal weapons to Ukraine.
• Specific Sales: In late 2017 and 2018, the administration approved sales for Barrett M107A1 sniper systems and 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles with 37 launchers.
  Atlantic Council +2

Though there were early arguments that this was a result of a broader legislative push, official approvals came from the executive branch.

 

[winjer]

Was it congress or trump that decided the sale of weapons to ukraine?

The Trump administration officially approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, beginning in December 2017. While Congress authorized the foreign aid and funds, the decision to approve the export license for lethal arms was a executive branch policy shift from the Obama administration.
Atlantic Council +2
Key details regarding the decision:

• Approval Authority: The U.S. State Department, under the Trump administration, authorized the sale of sniper systems and subsequently Javelin missiles, marking a policy shift to directly supply lethal defense hardware.
• Congressional Role: Congress authorized the funds and supported the policy, but the administration held the power to approve the actual transfer.
• Policy Shift: This action overturned the previous policy of the Obama administration, which had refrained from providing lethal weapons to Ukraine.
• Specific Sales: In late 2017 and 2018, the administration approved sales for Barrett M107A1 sniper systems and 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles with 37 launchers.
  Atlantic Council +2

Though there were early arguments that this was a result of a broader legislative push, official approvals came from the executive branch.

Congress initiated the process. Trump eventually approved it. But who knows, he might not have even read it.
Also consider that the aid provided during that period is a drop in the ocean, compared to what Ukraine needed to defend against Russian invasion.
But after that, it was completely one sided, against Ukraine.

 

[Brazen]

Congress initiated the process. Trump eventually approved it. But who knows, he might not have even read it.
But after that, it was completely one sided, against Ukraine.

Except for his whole attempt to put an end to the war.
Glad you came around from Trump "did absolutely nothing" or an insinuation that US is just REALLY on Russia side bs.

 

[Forsete]

Except for his whole attempt to put an end to the war.
Glad you came around from Trump "did absolutely nothing" or an insinuation that US is just REALLY on Russia side bs.

By forcing Ukraine to surrender its most defended and hardened territory, leaving it wide open for another invasion. Some peace deal.

 

[winjer]

Except for his whole attempt to put an end to the war.
Glad you came around from Trump "did absolutely nothing" or an insinuation that US is just REALLY on Russia side bs.

The only thing you can really say about Trump in his first term is that he didn't block aid to Ukraine, as those aid packages were set by Congress and by previous political commitments.
And yes, the Trump administration is siding with Russia. Cutting aid and intel from Ukraine as soon as he started his second term. Trying to force Ukraine to accept the Russian terms of surrender, which would cede a lot of territory, some of which wasn't even under Russian control.
Praising Putin publicly, while trying to humiliate Zelensky. Sending JD Vance to support Orban during the Hungarian elections.
And his current war in Iran only benefited Russia, which saw a major boon in their finances, due to oil and gas increased prices.
Worst yet, he refuses to sell military equipment that the EU was buying to give to Ukraine.
It's so obvious that the Trump administration is siding with Russia. He doesn't even try to hide it.

 

[Brazen]

Is Trump refusing to sell military equipment to EU for Ukraine?

As of April 2026, President Trump has not imposed a blanket ban on selling weapons, but has threatened to stop supplying weapons for Ukraine to pressure European allies into joining a U.S.-led coalition in the Strait of Hormuz. While direct U.S. aid has ceased, a new model involves European nations purchasing U.S. weapons for Ukraine.
The Jerusalem Post +3
Key Details Regarding Weapons Supply (April 2026):

• Pressure Tactics: Trump has threatened to cut off military supply chains to Ukraine unless European allies assist with military efforts in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Shift in Funding: The U.S. has stopped direct funding of weapons for Ukraine, with payments now being handled through NATO or directly by European countries.
• Buying, Not Gifting: European nations are buying, rather than receiving free, American-made weapons to send to Ukraine.
• Shortages & Restrictions: Reports suggest the U.S. has been stockpiling certain weapons, causing a pause in some, but not all, arms sales to Europe.
• Internal EU Dispute: The EU is facing internal debates on whether to use a €95 billion Ukraine loan (approx. $95 billion) to buy U.S. weapons or prioritize European-made arms, leading to a potential split in policy.
• Controversy: Some Reddit users have noted the irony of the U.S. taking funds for weapons that are then subjected to, or threatened with, delivery delays, sparking questions about the stability of the supply chain.
  The Atlantic +7

Reports in late 2025 and early 2026 indicated that while Trump was skeptical of direct aid, he was willing to allow NATO allies to buy weapons from the U.S. defense industry for transfer to Ukraine.

Nothing you say is completely accurate and/or lacks a lot of detail/nuance to paint a rather particular narrative.

 

[winjer]

Is Trump refusing to sell military equipment to EU for Ukraine?

As of April 2026, President Trump has not imposed a blanket ban on selling weapons, but has threatened to stop supplying weapons for Ukraine to pressure European allies into joining a U.S.-led coalition in the Strait of Hormuz. While direct U.S. aid has ceased, a new model involves European nations purchasing U.S. weapons for Ukraine.
The Jerusalem Post +3
Key Details Regarding Weapons Supply (April 2026):

• Pressure Tactics: Trump has threatened to cut off military supply chains to Ukraine unless European allies assist with military efforts in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Shift in Funding: The U.S. has stopped direct funding of weapons for Ukraine, with payments now being handled through NATO or directly by European countries.
• Buying, Not Gifting: European nations are buying, rather than receiving free, American-made weapons to send to Ukraine.
• Shortages & Restrictions: Reports suggest the U.S. has been stockpiling certain weapons, causing a pause in some, but not all, arms sales to Europe.
• Internal EU Dispute: The EU is facing internal debates on whether to use a €95 billion Ukraine loan (approx. $95 billion) to buy U.S. weapons or prioritize European-made arms, leading to a potential split in policy.
• Controversy: Some Reddit users have noted the irony of the U.S. taking funds for weapons that are then subjected to, or threatened with, delivery delays, sparking questions about the stability of the supply chain.
  The Atlantic +7

Reports in late 2025 and early 2026 indicated that while Trump was skeptical of direct aid, he was willing to allow NATO allies to buy weapons from the U.S. defense industry for transfer to Ukraine.

Nothing you say is completely accurate and/or lacks a lot of detail/nuance to paint a rather particular narrative.

Are you just using Grok, or some LLM to make up responses to people in this thread? Seriously?

And yes, the US is no longer selling Tomahawks to Ukraine, that are essential for Ukraine to defend it's population.

 

[Forsete]

Using AI to debate.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

EviLore is going to be mad when he sees you guys fighting about Trump and Ukraine here. Just saying

 

[Brazen]

Are you just using Grok, or some LLM to make up responses to people in this thread? Seriously?

And yes, the US is no longer selling Tomahawks to Ukraine, that are essential for Ukraine to defend it's population.

I'd be more than willing to take your info/word for it, but you going to have to prove to be more reliable than Google tools.
The US no longer selling/funding Ukraine is not the same as blocking the selling of weapons to EU for Ukraine's defense. Two different situations there.

 

[Brazen]

Using AI to debate.

When you can't address the details and/or arguments, attack the source in a hottake.

You and winjer are more than welcome to address the details to prove the AI wrong here in this context, should be easy to do right?
Or better yet, provide sources at the very least, even AI does that...

 

[winjer]

When you can't address the details and/or arguments, attack the source in a hottake.

You and winjer are more than welcome to address the details to prove the AI wrong here in this context, should be easy to do right?
Or better yet, provide sources at the very least, even AI does that...

Not worth our time.
But you can open two LLMs and argue with yourself, if you feel inclined to do so.

 

[Forsete]

When you can't address the details and/or arguments, attack the source in a hottake.

You and winjer are more than welcome to address the details to prove the AI wrong here in this context, should be easy to do right?
Or better yet, provide sources at the very least, even AI does that...

Like you would read them anyway.

 

[Brazen]

Not worth our time.
But you can open two LLMs and argue with yourself, if you feel inclined to do so.

But open two LLMs is not what is going on here. I'm checking what YOU posted and using Google to do so.
You're welcome to point me in a direction of sources, providing it is a waste of time is THE cop-out in a debate.

 

[winjer]

But open two LLMs is not what is going on here. I'm checking what YOU posted and using Google to do so.
You're welcome to point me in a direction of sources, providing it is a waste of time is THE cop-out in a debate.

You can source them yourself with you AI.
If you can't be bothered to argue yourself, then I can't be bothered to respond to you.
Go troll somewhere else.

 

[Brazen]

Like you would read them anyway.

We are all here to read and where have I shown I'm unwilling?

 

[Forsete]

We are all here to read and where have I shown I'm unwilling?

For you to respond with AI? No thx.

 

[Brazen]

You can source them yourself with you AI.
If you can't be bothered to argue yourself, then I can't be bothered to respond to you.
Go troll somewhere else.

AI did source them, lmao. Did you miss "the atlantic, center for public integrity, etc in my previous post? Or just not read it at all?

 

[Brazen]

For you to respond with AI? No thx.

No I responded with sources and details, that just happened to by provided by an AI tool.
You're welcome to address where those details are wrong. It coming from AI doesn't stop you from doing it.

 

[Madserb2023]

Neither the US or Europe has helped Ukraine as much as they should have. If in the event the war doesn't end well for Ukraine it's going to be finger pointing and absolutely zero accountability. Everyone will be at fault for not helping enough. Europe is no better. We didn't fight the Nazis and also say here you go, there's 50 billion for imports. We sacrificed our economies. Any criticism of EU actions is met with well they have no choice. They absolutely do and so does the US. No country is willing to go as far as North Korea has for Russia and again that's met with excuses with well it will end with nuclear war....oh but isn't that a bluff repeated by the same people. This 90 billion shouldn't even be a loan. The Ukrainian economy is not much bigger than the loan. Should have been the frozen assets. To me it's all politics to pass the blame.

 

[Forsete]

Neither the US or Europe has helped Ukraine as much as they should have. If in the event the war doesn't end well for Ukraine it's going to be finger pointing and absolutely zero accountability. Everyone will be at fault for not helping enough. Europe is no better. We didn't fight the Nazis and also say here you go, there's 50 billion for imports. We sacrificed our economies. Any criticism of EU actions is met with well they have no choice. They absolutely do and so does the US. No country is willing to go as far as North Korea has for Russia and again that's met with excuses with well it will end with nuclear war....oh but isn't that a bluff repeated by the same people. This 90 billion shouldn't even be a loan. The Ukrainian economy is not much bigger than the loan. Should have been the frozen assets. To me it's all politics to pass the blame.

It was supposed to be frozen assets, but Belgium chickened out.
Also, it really isn't a loan that UA will have to repay per se, as it will be recouped by russia paying for war damages (probably via the frozen assets).

 

[YCoCg]

Wow all this Iran talk sure is interesting.

 

[Madserb2023]

It was supposed to be frozen assets, but Belgium chickened out.
Also, it really isn't a loan that UA will have to repay per se, as it will be recouped by russia paying for war damages (probably via the frozen assets).

Who is going to make Russia pay for war damages exactly. It's not going to happen. Bottom line, if the US was a whole in the ground. Europe with it's 500 million people and an 18 trillion dollar economy could end this war. 90 billion for an existential threat? The UK alone spent trillions in today's money during WW2. The only reason Russia is in this war is because China deems it. Russia hasn't become a computer chip manufacturer overnight, China is supplying them. Imports from just China will be double that loan this year.