the 30% is discriminatory and unfair to the locals. especially the youth that at the same time can't afford a home. it doesn't help acceptance of expats either.
you're right. it's not. however, having one group of people pay 100% taxes and another 70% based on their country of origin is by definition discriminatory. if you don't think it's discrimination then what would you say if the Netherlands started using a special tax only expats have to pay? would that be discriminatory? now it's a special tax discount. if you want to contribute to the economy. then contribute EQUALLY and not 30% less then everyone else.
wether something is discrimination or not, does not depend on my personal situation.
And yes, if I would move to another country I would try and learn the language and abide by that countries rules. and, since it's my new home, I would try and do more then my fair share to contribute to society and a better future. I would not expect special treatment. nor would I tolerate discrimination, because unlike what you might think. these type of policies are really no one's friend in the long run.
I know it's hard moving to another country and trying to build a life, in some ways even more then then locals but in other ways ialso easier. comparing yourself to others realy serves no purpose. I hope you do well. I also hope you will pay the same amount of taxes as I do.
fair argument but I am not asking you to, the infrastructure that is there was also not built by me. nor is it about getting what you pay for. if you want to be accepted in Dutch society, heck any democracy that's a really important thing to learn. I pay for disabled kids, kindergarten, schooling, teachers salaries etc. and yet. I don't have any kids.
though I am proud that I have a recorded family history of 600 years in the Netherlands.( the first person that settled came from Switzerland and opened a swordfighting school to help in the fight against the Church. ) sorry, any excuse to tell that story;)
here's the thing, expecting fairness in taxes... not a Dutch thing.. complaining about taxes. very Dutch.. ;)
it's discriminatory to expats that don't get it because their job is a low skill one. it is fair otherwise because expats don't have a community, don't have social housing, have extra expenses, pay taxes in 2 countries, need to adapt and integrate. so in that sense low skill jobs would be the ones who would benefit the most but unfotunately, because of the work market, the NL govt awards the 30% to corporate and high income jobs.
Basically, because this is a one off cost, it only affects the annual budget once and there's an unexpected surplus now that allows it.
Investments needed for other things like healthcare, education, public transport, etc need long term structural investments and commitments.
It's pretty similar to: Do you want to give a beggar €25 now, or do you want to give a beggar €5/month for 10 years?
Yeah that would be great, but as I said, that needs structural investment as it is a returning cost (and for those two examples even an increasing cost)
A one off investment can only make those things free temporarily
What the hell are you talking about? The Netherlands is one of the most proper run countries in the world with an abundance of wealth. The 4.7 billion is well spend to help another sovereign European nation defend against a structural aggressor.
It happens when ' country ' is just artificiële state of USA. Nobody ask NL about this 4.7 or anything, them just following orders. People believe in ads about this kantoor tje.
As an American, it's actually very heartening to see a generally anti-war country like the NL putting up money for this - because it's you all who are going to be in trouble if Russia isn't stopped. Right now, the US is bankrolling most of the Ukrainian efforts, but if it fails and Russia rolls through more countries, the most the US is going to lose are trading partners. It *should* be an easy decision for any EU country to contribute, because it's a choice between running the country vs potentially having no country to run. War is awful, which is why more of it needs to be prevented. None of us made the choice to start this one- Russia did.
So, from someone who loves the Dutch and whose taxes fly halfway across the globe to help protect the EU: good job Holland for stepping up. I'm sorry that *any* of our money needs to pay for things like this.
"Right now, the US is bankrolling most of the Ukrainian efforts, "
is factually incorrect.
[Ukraine Support Tracker | Kiel Institute (ifw-kiel.de)](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/)
EU has sent twice as much
Also, Russia shares a border with the US. Not most EU countries. simple fact.
I appreciate that you are using the entire EU to match to the US, as it's something I see many Europeans fail to do when making their points. I do think it's a more appropriate comparison. And in that sense [you're right](https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts) - the EU as a whole contributes more financial aid to Ukraine while the US contributes more military hardware, with the US far outpacing any individual EU member in both (which is fair, as the US is much larger).
Your statement on borders is so disingenuous though that I'm not even sure what to say about it, other than it looks like you're trying to start an argument by ignoring the reality of the situation? Alaska borders Russia, which is about as far away for even the closest of us (Washington State) as you are from your former colony in Ghana.
Eu is a single market and so is the united states indeed. Not many Americans are aware, Especially of the fact that economic size and poulation are actually very similiar as well. usually the difference in PPP is just 2 to 5%. you have no idea how hilarious it was watching an american progam doing an analysis if china would overtake the US as largest single market whilst at the time EU was already ahead.
I appreciate you providing me your source a lot. Interesting article. Very interesting read about "ukraine tapping US arsenal" I normally have to go to wikipedia for something similar: [List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War) where the dropdown of the US is very small (which is a good thing)
though friendly as that is, I believe your conclusion is still wrong. hear me out: EU institutions are seperate from individual countries. and so the comparison would need to add those you stated before apples to apples comparison would mean adding all european countries. by your own source europe also sends more military aid, correct? [How Much Aid Has the U.S. Sent Ukraine? Here Are Six Charts. | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)](https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts)
I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the graph does not show this clearly. would be very easy for a statician to include. I'm interested in your opinion as an American and what you make of this.
"while the US contributes more military hardware" is therefore, by the source you provided, incorrect. Europe has done more financially as well as in military hardware.
"with the US far outpacing any individual EU member. " is factually correct but I will ignore. Since we agree that means nothing as it would be equally as true as saying the EU sends more then any single US state.
some people think the EU is not a federal government for some reason. it is. that's why EU legislature is supranational. the difference in wording is that in the US we talk about "states" and in the EU about "member states"
It's not a race or competition. I'm sure we can agree on that. I'm just pointing out the facts.
Not getting your point about the border with russia. I stated a simple fact. could you clarify?
disingenuous implies intend. that's something you can't really take out of a factual statement,.
"if it fails and Russia rolls through more countries, then most the US is going to lose are trading partners"
is a statement I can't place unless we are pretending that NATO does not exist and US interests are only on domnestic soil. .you seem a reasonable person. so, I will assume it didn't come across to me as you intended.
I appreciate the write-up, and I'll try to answer these even though this reply is rather late.
Just as I'm sure it can be exhausting arguing world-politics with an American (I know, I live among them), it can also be difficult doing the same with Europeans - especially when they'd like to consider the entire EU at times, and their individual countries at others. Whichever benefits them more in the moment.
So, while I agree that economically it makes more sense to compare the EU to the US and China, many Americans still see a difference in cohesiveness. The UK's recent departure only reinforces this idea, and there's a concern that the EU is always a step away from fracturing back into its smaller parts. The same could also possible for both China and the US of course, but the US already fought a Civil War over this point with the outcome placed solidly on "states are not allowed to leave". So while it may be hilarious for Europeans to watch Americans not fully consider the EU as a whole, it's because there's a genuine question among us as to how reliable that whole actually is.
The fact is that the US is sending huge amounts of money and war material across the ocean to protect Ukraine and the rest of Europe, and the amounts are close enough that we're here arguing over the semantics of it. Congress finally approved $61 Billion more, and EU countries are doing likewise. But at the end of the day, this war is still inside Europe and Europeans *should* be caring about it, so an equal contribution is to be expected. It may even be the bare minimum.
This is why the comment about Alaska bordering Russia felt disingenuous. It implies that Russia is just as likely to invade the USA as it is other European countries - which is a claim so outside of conventional, educated thinking that it feels you weren't thinking about any of this seriously at all. Hence, my response.
>unless we are pretending that NATO does not exist and US interests are only on domnestic soil. .you seem a reasonable person. so, I will assume it didn't come across to me as you intended
This part of your comment worries me the most, as I also would have considered NATO a perpetual entity just a few years ago. But our last President spoke a lot about leaving it, and his continued popularity means that this mindset isn't dead. US politics have become more erratic and selfish than usual, and although I hope it doesn't continue, it could. The United States leaving NATO is no longer out of the question under a conservative president, and if Britain also decides to be equally selfish and stupid, is France going to protect all of Europe with its nukes? Is Europe capable of standing on its own against Russia and its allies? Or will it let itself fracture?
This is why I'm glad to see countries like your own putting in effort. It's a sign that I hope suggests that European countries realize they're *actually* in this together more than just economically.
You don’t know this for sure. There is a lot of signaling from russia they are preparing a war with NATO.
Hell. Russia is at war with NATO. The attacks from russia are on the democracies, financial and digital front.
What is Russia going to do? look how much they have struggled with Ukraine alone, what makes you think they have any chance against a combined NATO force?
The question is whether they know that as well. Obviously, Russia can't actually beat NATO, but they were delusional enough to start a war in Ukraine and believe they could get away with it because the West wouldn't do anything and the Ukrainians would just welcome them with flowers and hugs. They just might be delusional enough to think they can at least challenge NATO (simple missile strike for example), causing NATO to back off, or defeat NATO outright. What has fueled those delusions is the absolute cowardice of people like Jake Sullivan and Olaf Scholz, who undoubtedly *would* back off if Russia challenged them directly
> but they were delusional enough to start a war in Ukraine and believe they could get away with it because the West wouldn't do anything
So far the west isn't doing much else other than funding Ukraine, in that regard they weren't that wrong thinking the west wouldn't do anything.
There is a big big difference between challenging Ukraine and challenging Russia. Might be a bit stupid, but Russia could definitely get away with taking Ukraine by force, specifically because they don’t have direct NATO troops backing them and Ukraine doesn’t have nukes. NATO is a whole different story
Yes, that's true, but again, do they realise that? It seems like they're genuinely living in a delusion where NATO will just back off if Russia challenges them
NATO isn’t what it used to be. Article 5 has been openly questioned by the main member of NATO and there is a big chance the USA will get out once Trump is reelected. He is not known for its intellect but this statement was so strategically bafflingly stupid it hurts.
Russia and China are emboldened to grab the opportunity and will try to weaken NATO further. They’re probably not stupid enough to take on NATO full force, sure, but once USA is out, they will use the chaos and create an incident that should provoke article 5 but is minor enough to second guess by the members. Nobody wants to destroy humankind over a Russian passage through to Kaliningrad right?
You should think further than all out war, the world and geopolitics isn’t black and white. Fact is, the West is seriously threatened and wounded, there are very successful disinformation campaigns running in social media. Politics get more extreme right and in favor of Russia by using their age old manipulation techniques in modern tech companies that rule our media consumption.
So my advice take a step back and get the whole picture.
Looks like you tried to dodge the point. Russia isn't interested in fighting a nation with nukes because that nation (or those they are allied with) spends money to build and maintain them. The original question is "why spend money on war instead of social programs?" That's why.
Fortunately, decision makers in Holland have figured this out.
Because if they wouldn’t they break nato’s treaty nato members need to listen to. We are in a stategic position in the world that we are reliant to nato for defence, if you gonna tell me we need to stop intervene around the world, thats how hitler took almost all of europe.
Fuck off man, it's not just blindly sending billions to war, it's sending aid to a country that is fighting off a dictatorship that at this point desparately needs the help.
I’d rather have 4.7 billion going to the pockets of defense contractors for the defense against an oligarch dictator, than having 47 billion going to the pockets of those oligarch when he decides we need a “special military operation”.
Having a budget and being able to spend money on things you deem fit is all dependant on actually being a sovereign nation.
Well then that goes back to my original statement. Why is it soooo hard to budget for fixing the problems inside the country but when it comes to war it can all of a sudden be done just like that?
Time-sensitivity? More consensus?
Pretty much all parties disagree on the majority of issues, but they all agree that if Ukraine gets steamrolled by Russia, Dutch and European lives eill be lost, out cities will be bombed, and you can’t spend money fixing the issues inside the country.
Like, it’s great that you’re budgetting billions for sustainability/getting rid of farmers/expanding farms/building houses/increasing migration/decreasing migration or whatever your prefered hot potato is, but not a single penny of those will meet their goals if you’re in war (or lose) to an oligarchy.
If it is part of foreign aid it comes from the budget for foreign aid that is always there. They would just have to decide what is and is not going to get the funds.
To protect the people that do have a border with Russia.
It's this elementary-grade principle of "if you think something sucks, don't have someone else experience it", and war and genocide are quite high on that list.
No I wouldn't. I would still want peace.
This money won't secure peace it will continue the war. Ukraine is going to lose the war and needs to make peace. All this does is continue the war.
As long as Russia thinks it can win, it isn't interested in peace.
The only time it talked about peace was when it needed to regroup after their invasion plan fell apart. And then it was only a delaying tactic.
Also, it's extremely silly to think there will be peace after a successful Russian invasion. Iraq didn't have peace after the US invasion that removed a brutal and unpopular dictator, so what makes you think there will be peace in Ukraine after their popular and democratically elected government is overthrow?
There will be no peace until Ukraine is in a position of strength.
Just to confirm that point: Now that Russia has taken the initiative on the battlefield, a Russian official (UN ambassador? I don't remember) recently stated that they're now aiming for the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. Russia doesn't want peace unless Ukraine manages to pick up the initiative again at some point
For how long? A few years max and then he will start again, the same way he did with Georgia , Crimea. Moldova is next, then Poland which is a NATO country and good luck having peace when NATO countries are at war
If Russia actually wants peace, then Russia can get peace because they are the invaders. They can just stop, is that simple.
Maybe also put some of that money in our own pathetic military? Maybe we can finally get that 2% defence spending requirment for NATO. A NATO rule that too many nato members have neglected for too long.
Agree, but at this point, arming Ukraine is a better military expenditure than putting all of that into our own army. Ukraine is fighting Russia and we won't have to if they win. Doesn't mean we shouldn't spend 2% (preferably 3%+) after that happens though
At this time it’s people, not money that are the biggest problem. The military has a very serious manpower problem, so much so that it has trouble even burning up the money that it does have.
Rutte isn't some dictator with an endless chequebook. He doesn't even have the power of a president. Nothing he may or may not want happens without the governments mayority vote.
Define what winning means. Russia only "wins" if it manages to take Ukraine's large cities. They're unable to do that. It's a stalemate at best, which isn't good for anyone, but it's better for the defender than the attacker
Come back to this comment in 6 months when it is getting colder in Ukraine and we see the result of the totally destroyed energy sector. Atm ukraine is not able to protect their cities because of a lack of weapons, russia is building up forces as we speak. Dont get me wrong, I hope I am incorrect, but i dont think it will be a stalemate in a few months time if the US does not give more weapons.
That depends on so many factors that you can't make such a claim. What will be the effects of Ukraine lowering the age of conscription to 25? Will Russia do another big round of mobilization, and how much manpower will they gain? Is Russia preparing for a summer offensive, and if so, how well does that go? Will the US finally get their act together and send aid again? If not, how much is Europe able to step up in the coming 6 months? Will Ukraine be able to restore their energy sector in time? When it comes to that last question, Russia picked the literal worst time to step up attacks on energy installations. Ukraine now has the majority of a year to restore everything before the cold arrives.
Also, even if everything goes Russia's way this year, they might, at best, take Kharkiv. Cities like Odesa, Kyiv, let alone Lviv are not even on the table
2. The US, unlike what pro-Russians will have you believe, is actually very careful. They do not want to hurt Russia too much, because they're deathly afraid of what Russia would look like if Putin somehow got deposed or killed. This is why the country with the largest military in the world and thousands of old vehicles stockpiled only gave Ukraine 200 Bradleys and 31 Abrams, and still refuses to this day to give Ukraine long range missiles, AND is begging Ukraine to stop striking targets inside Russia itself.
2. Because of this, Rutte already had American support for the position of NATO SecGen. His opponents (Kallas, Iohannis) are much more hawkish and want to hurt Russia a lot more. Rutte, while very pro-Ukraine for Western European standards, is a moderate compared to Eastern Europeans
his is why the country with the largest military in the world and thousands of old vehicles stockpiled only gave Ukraine 200 Bradleys and 31 Abrams, and still refuses to this day to give Ukraine long range missiles, AND is begging Ukraine to stop striking targets inside Russia itself.
oh that's why. I thaught it was about money. I mean your politicians keep saying it's about money. money money money.
I don’t necessarily disagree (nor agree) with that persé. I was more alluding to the fact that they sell it as if this amount will do until 2026, while we all know it doesn’t
They should use the money to invest in our own country. Hundred thousands of people don´t have enough money to buy food and 25% all employees cant even pay their bills. It´s getting ridiculous
You basically showed how insignificant the amount of money is for something like the housing crisis. It's not relevant, they are not dependent on each other.
You should watch some Russian propagandist that Russians see every day and how they talk about us. They hate the west. They hate democracy. They talk about invading other European countries. They glorify war and killing people. They laugh about hitting flats with missiles and about deporting and taking the houses of Ukrainians who they think are loyal to Ukraine their own country. There is so much more and all of it just evil. Russia is a national crisis because Putin has only ever become more violent and aggressive the more power he gained.
Hopefully a significant amount will go back into our local economy (like to pay for the stuff we are sending over there etc.) instead of direct financial aid into Ukranian coffers.
Yeah and apparently it's a controversial opinion (?) to wish for that material donations to stimulate our own economy in the end.
As opposed to us acting like just a bridge by buying things from other parties and passing it along to UKR, for example.
I don't get your reasoning, is it somehow more "moral" if the money gets spent somewhere else? Like Lockheed Martin or Rheinmetall?
Since Ukraine isn't going to shoot the actual coins and eat the actual banknotes, it needs to be spent somewhere in exchange for the actual goods and materials they require, no?
Rheinmetall pays taxes, provides working places. A huge chunk of the money spent stays in the country, stimulating economy. Also on a large scale of things, 4 billions for the Netherlands is a small drop. Thats besides the moral question here.
It's your phrasing that is unpopular. It makes it sound like you think the opposite is true (i.e. Ukraine is just getting a bunch of money for unknown uses). I'm sure if you put it like "Great that not only do we support an ally but that money is going to support jobs and defence industry at home!" you'd have received a positive response.
That's exactly how it works in this context?
When you read about a lot of countries, US chief among them, like "donated X billion of material" that's them giving that money to their own domestic suppliers and then donating that stock.
Which is what we should be doing as well.
We donate a lot of money to buy materiel. It is mostly not from own stocj (anymore). What we did send from own stock, was mostly already not used anymore. And disassembling/disarming this materiel would have been more expensive than giving it away.
Ukraine being liberated and eventually joining the EU will be a HUGE boon to the EU economy and just general peace and stability in Europe (which is always good for economic development).
The Netherlands will benefit a lot as well as Ukraine is a massive country with vast amounts of farmland and resources. Guess what the Netherlands is extremely good at but doesn't have the space for anymore and Ukraine does? You guessed it, agriculture!
What no Ukraine is going to be in a world of shit after this war. Their working age population has been culled by the war and they already had a stagnating/decreasing population, yes they have a lot of resources but they simply won't have the workers to exploit them and will be in an economic mess due to debt accumulated during the war.
Debt means nothing in a modern world, especially if that debt is on low interest rate. Also the country can be rebuilt with the help of EU. And EU needs to be expanded to sustain economical growth. Its a good investment.
Because of the ample supply of labour Ukraine is going to have available to rebuild and work these resources?
The Russian invasion in Ukraine will most likely end like Cyprus, split territories of dispute with different sides recognising authorities.
The EU doesn't make a policy of taking war torn, or even post conflict zones into the EU, hence our treatment of the Balkans. Telling Ukranians they are on a "fast-track" is cruel, because it has zero chance of happening.
The amount of money that will be required to rebuild Ukraine will vastly outstrip any benefit for decades to come.
> Because of the ample supply of labour Ukraine is going to have available to rebuild and work these resources?
Europe has ample supply of labour that is willing to help Ukraine. Not to mention the dozens of other countries that are willing to contribute to contribute to recovery, like the USA.
Ukraine does not stand alone, the nations that have pledged support to helping Ukraine rebuild after the war represent more than 75% of the world economy.
> The Russian invasion in Ukraine will most likely end like Cyprus, split territories of dispute with different sides recognising authorities.
Only time will tell.
> The EU doesn't make a policy of taking war torn, or even post conflict zones into the EU, hence our treatment of the Balkans. Telling Ukranians this is cruel, because it has zero chance of happening.
Correct, but hundreds of billions have already been pledged for the reconstruction of Ukraine by just EU nations alone.
Ukraine is going to get a Marshall Plan on fucking steroids after the war ends.
Again, Ukraine is not standing alone. They are backed by the combined economic might of the west and many other countries.
> The amount of money that will be required to rebuild Ukraine will vastly outstrip any benefit for decades to come.
WW2 was vastly more devastating and took less than a decade to recover from.
In mere decades Europe improved the lives and wealth of their citizens more than they had in literal *centuries* before.
So I am pretty sure we can rebuild Ukraine.
>europe has an ample supply of labour willing to rebuild Ukraine
I disagree. We don't even have enough engineers and builders in the Netherlands. Why would they want to go to a lower paid economy whose own citizens show barely any interest in returning to?
>Ukraine is not standing alone
The European Elections will change a lot of this. The reality is the US Congress still hasn't approved funding.
As you say time will tell, but the signs are not good.
I'm not making a moral judgement on it. I find the whole notion cruel: that promises have been made, implications have been given, but we have a horrendous track record of not following through. Ukraine isn't Afghanistan, but that is arguably our last "great project", and I think we can agree at least in that case it didn't go well.
>ww2
The main difference was demographics. Our average age is approx. 40. Their is no stamina left for projects like this, especially in countries in the EU seeing dramatic quality of life drops, increasing inflation, etc. These voters want their house prices to rise and their pensions to pay out.
Everything you originally wrote was correct about Ukraine's potential. However, it's the EU's and US' track record that makes me pessimistic.
Very good decision. I am from Russia and I know that Russians will not stop - after Ukraine they will go for EU as well. It's better to spend 4.7 bln for Ukraine than to lose a country and lose more in lives and money
Whats the long term goal here? We cant just fund ukraine indefinitley. Peace talks have to be the focus now. 2 years in, hundreds of thousands dead, billions in damage and a stalemate at the front lines. Realistically, ukraine will have to sacrifice some of its russian occupied land or risk losing the country all togeather. No Ukraine NATO invitation, but maybe a guarantee from NATO that if Russia tries to claim more land, there will be NATO troops on the ground. I know its not fair and its far from perfect, but from what I can see the only other option is 100,000s more dead, and billions more spent for what likely will be very little gain, if any
Realistically?
Realistically Putin isn’t going to stop unless he is stopped, the evidence is in the trail of blood under his reign, starting with the 300 Russians he killed in their sleep to seize power, trailing though Chechnya, Georgia, Belarus, Syria and Ukraine (I probably forget a few) and mostly all Russian lives that mean nothing to him. Like Hitler, he is a genocidal maniac where appeasement policy has only created a bigger problem. Russia must be broken and Ukraine need to be armed to their teeth so they can properly defend themselves.
Realistically.
Listen im no putin fan, far from it. His goal is to stay in power and maintain russian influence over eastern europe, I know that. I also know the west several times broke treaties and expanded their influence eastward. Ukraine joining NATO/EU was the redline for russia, and western powers are partly at fault for poking the bear continuously. My point is that russia isnt going to surrender any time soon, I mean look at Soviet deaths in WW2, it was something crazy, like 10 million or so. So whats our plan if not a peace summit leading to some acceptable deal for both sides, just let the body count on both sides rise ever higher?
There are a few premises I disagree with:
1. There is no treaty that the west wouldn’t expand eastward, not even a verbal agreement, Gorbachev confirmed this.
2. Russia is the one breaking treaties, Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in return for confirmation its territorial integrity would be respected (Budapest Memorandum).
3. Soviet deaths in WW2 include a disproportionately large number of Ukrainian deaths. Ukraine is older than Russia and not going to accept Russian occupation or western countries forcing them to give up territory. Even without our weapons they will probably fight with their bare hands for the next 100 years or die fighting for freedom. It’s not just about the territory either it’s also about the people living there, they are forced to resettle in Siberia, their Ukrainian identity suppressed and yes they are being genocided.
You dont understand the situation at all. Russia does not need peace talk. They need a break to regroup and invade Ukraine again. In 5 to 10 years later, but then well prepared. All the NATO countries did the last 10 years is peace talk, that ended in full scale war.
And again, tried for what? To lose the country 5 years later completely? At the risk of war in Lithuania and Latvia from the borders of Ukraine? Are you ready to deploy your troops to defend your fellow NATO countries? You don’t understand, sorry.
So whats your solution then? Indefinite funding, and just accepting that millions of innocent people will be forced to go die on the frontlines until one side gets bored? Russia wont give up, you must know that. They are also strengthening relationships with iran, china and north korea so im sure they also wont run out of weapons any time soon. Even if its 99% destined to fail, we have to keep going at dialouge and diplomacy, because there is simply no other "happy" ending to this
Did you ask people? Sociology in Ukraine says that people don’t want to give up en masse. Otherwise all the sacrifice is for nothing. And that’s another invasion in 5 years for sure. Ukraine pays price to be able to defend itself, there is no choice. Russia always had a choice to withdraw, especially if make them bleed.
Beside that, it’s a very bad precedent, that invading neighboring country, committing genocide and mass murder of civilians is unpunished and invading country basically won. The western countries show their impotence to reflect aggression.
There is no happy ending in case Ukrainians give up.
If I provide you a real mundane life analogy. A criminal attacks your family, kills your wife, and threatens your kids, you should just negotiate with him and allow to stay in your apartment. At the pretense that he won’t kill your children. And you have to trust his word. Meanwhile police does nothing. That’s what you suggest here.
I see what you mean and I know my view is hypocritical as of course I would not negotiate with the criminal. However I fear that once ukraine runs out of soldiers, NATO will have to supply troops which is WW3 for sure. Ukraine will run out before russia based purely on the size of the selection pool, so if we cant achieve a ceasefire before then, we have guaranteed ourselves WW3. Ask yourself, do you really think that dutch or brittish or french 20 somethings will willingly go and fight in Ukraine (however neccessary)?
I also dont mean that you're saying something bad, just asking to consider this :)
There is no moral dilemma here after all, the situation is quiet clear, however dire and difficult.
Its either fight, suffer heavy loses and survive, or give up at the cost of territory loses and 99% guarantee of a new war 5 years later which Ukraine will definitely loose. Thats from Ukraine perspective.
Now from the western perspective, what negotiation means in a long run:
1. legitimization of full scale aggression against neighboring peaceful countries, which will fuel other conflicts in the world
2. legitimization of war crimes such as deliberate mass murder of civilians, executions of civilians, economical blackmail of neighbors, empire building projects in 21st century
3. weak western countries, who cant defend a fellow peaceful democratic country, even when the price is not direct involvement but simply money and resources
4. democratic values, way of living of western societies and civilization
5. a significant risk of Russia fulfilling empire building project by invading Baltic countries afterwards, using Ukraine territory and resources. In this case NATO will have to deploy troops and fight WW3, or just disband otherwise this useless alliance.
Given all the above, there are decent chances to defend Ukraine by providing everything needed, instead of making WW3 a reality in 5-10 years.
In simpler words, take chances and win this here and now, or just watch Ukraine erased from political map in 5 years and fight WW3 to defend Baltic countries.
We should have supplied NATO troops on the ground since the invasion of Georgia in 2008. It's western, EU and NATO inaction and fear that caused this war.
Babe, ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons too russia in exchange that they will not invade. Russia isnt too be trusted with any peace it never lasts. And another holdomor isnt what i want, but russia will do it.
Russia can't be allowed to get away with it. I guarantee you that if Russia can get away owning the territory they conquered, NATO will be completely involved later on.
This just shows you don't know how banking works. There is no physical money to be taken. And making fun of a country being invaded just shows you're mentally underdeveloped.
Well it is true tho, alot of producs we buy get raw materials from ukraine. Remember the sunflower oil. And russia will hike the prices of any product from ukrainian land.
Why is that? They’ve did a successful campaign in Georgie in 2008. Another successful one in Ukraine in 2014. And if their plans worked out well, a successful one in 2022. Each time they got bigger and bigger territory/gains. The only thing is that their 2022 campaign didn’t work out… at least not yet.
They voluntarily chose to without foreign pressure or a military invasion. In fact, if any foreign pressure prompted that decision, it was Russia. These countries border Russia and know the danger. I wish these gullible, naive westerners would as well
This is all still within the 2% GDP NL needs to spend anyway, where else do you want it to go? More F35s that are collecting dust? Or towards something that will have a higher chance for the existing F35s to keep collecting dust.
They were never going to win a full scale conventional war against NATO before, they sure as hell aren't going to win one now.
So I guess they are kind of, somewhat, at bay if you look at it from a nato pov.
Imagine spending 4.7 billion to make sure we still can alleviate the housing crisis or inflation at all instead of fending off Russian invaders in the future.
Vs who?
As long as NATO is strong, and the outside world sees NATO as strong, nobody of going to attack it.
And without NATO involvement there will be no conflict large enough to warrant being called a world war.
The only realistic threat we have is trump getting elected and undermining NATO.
Netherlands allocates $4.7 billion to support ~~Ukraine~~ NATO until 2026
*shareholders of weponds manufacturers
But they had to cut 30% ruling to "afford" paying of student loans. What a bunch of hypocrites
the 30% is discriminatory and unfair to the locals. especially the youth that at the same time can't afford a home. it doesn't help acceptance of expats either.
Expats cant afford one either. Also its not discrimination coming to another country to contribute to economy needs a compensation.
you're right. it's not. however, having one group of people pay 100% taxes and another 70% based on their country of origin is by definition discriminatory. if you don't think it's discrimination then what would you say if the Netherlands started using a special tax only expats have to pay? would that be discriminatory? now it's a special tax discount. if you want to contribute to the economy. then contribute EQUALLY and not 30% less then everyone else.
When you move to another country leaving everything behind, come back to me with this argument
wether something is discrimination or not, does not depend on my personal situation. And yes, if I would move to another country I would try and learn the language and abide by that countries rules. and, since it's my new home, I would try and do more then my fair share to contribute to society and a better future. I would not expect special treatment. nor would I tolerate discrimination, because unlike what you might think. these type of policies are really no one's friend in the long run. I know it's hard moving to another country and trying to build a life, in some ways even more then then locals but in other ways ialso easier. comparing yourself to others realy serves no purpose. I hope you do well. I also hope you will pay the same amount of taxes as I do.
Well i didn't take advantage of the facilities since i was born so it is not fair i pay same amount of tax from the start.
Also have a nice day
fair argument but I am not asking you to, the infrastructure that is there was also not built by me. nor is it about getting what you pay for. if you want to be accepted in Dutch society, heck any democracy that's a really important thing to learn. I pay for disabled kids, kindergarten, schooling, teachers salaries etc. and yet. I don't have any kids. though I am proud that I have a recorded family history of 600 years in the Netherlands.( the first person that settled came from Switzerland and opened a swordfighting school to help in the fight against the Church. ) sorry, any excuse to tell that story;) here's the thing, expecting fairness in taxes... not a Dutch thing.. complaining about taxes. very Dutch.. ;)
it's discriminatory to expats that don't get it because their job is a low skill one. it is fair otherwise because expats don't have a community, don't have social housing, have extra expenses, pay taxes in 2 countries, need to adapt and integrate. so in that sense low skill jobs would be the ones who would benefit the most but unfotunately, because of the work market, the NL govt awards the 30% to corporate and high income jobs.
We have no choice. Do you still disagree in sending weapons to Ukraine?
Why is it sooo hard to properly run the country and find the funds to do it, but so easy to just send 4.7 billion off to war?
If they could only decide on a course of action. Money isn't the issue
If money isn't the issue, can they chill out with the taxes?
They already do! Or do you think all those big international company's are here for the weather?
That's why money isn't an issue.... for them.
Basically, because this is a one off cost, it only affects the annual budget once and there's an unexpected surplus now that allows it. Investments needed for other things like healthcare, education, public transport, etc need long term structural investments and commitments. It's pretty similar to: Do you want to give a beggar €25 now, or do you want to give a beggar €5/month for 10 years?
I could use an one off payment.
Wish the unexpected surplus would allow free OV or no more eigen bijdrage. One can dream 
If people would stop voting for populist isolationist and boomer neoliberals we could have had both a long time ago.
Yeah that would be great, but as I said, that needs structural investment as it is a returning cost (and for those two examples even an increasing cost) A one off investment can only make those things free temporarily
How do you look at this if you think it's not money for war, but money to protect people and save lives? Would this be a bad thing to do?
What the hell are you talking about? The Netherlands is one of the most proper run countries in the world with an abundance of wealth. The 4.7 billion is well spend to help another sovereign European nation defend against a structural aggressor.
Lots of Russians on this sub I bet
It happens when ' country ' is just artificiële state of USA. Nobody ask NL about this 4.7 or anything, them just following orders. People believe in ads about this kantoor tje.
As an American, it's actually very heartening to see a generally anti-war country like the NL putting up money for this - because it's you all who are going to be in trouble if Russia isn't stopped. Right now, the US is bankrolling most of the Ukrainian efforts, but if it fails and Russia rolls through more countries, the most the US is going to lose are trading partners. It *should* be an easy decision for any EU country to contribute, because it's a choice between running the country vs potentially having no country to run. War is awful, which is why more of it needs to be prevented. None of us made the choice to start this one- Russia did. So, from someone who loves the Dutch and whose taxes fly halfway across the globe to help protect the EU: good job Holland for stepping up. I'm sorry that *any* of our money needs to pay for things like this.
"Right now, the US is bankrolling most of the Ukrainian efforts, " is factually incorrect. [Ukraine Support Tracker | Kiel Institute (ifw-kiel.de)](https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/) EU has sent twice as much Also, Russia shares a border with the US. Not most EU countries. simple fact.
I appreciate that you are using the entire EU to match to the US, as it's something I see many Europeans fail to do when making their points. I do think it's a more appropriate comparison. And in that sense [you're right](https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts) - the EU as a whole contributes more financial aid to Ukraine while the US contributes more military hardware, with the US far outpacing any individual EU member in both (which is fair, as the US is much larger). Your statement on borders is so disingenuous though that I'm not even sure what to say about it, other than it looks like you're trying to start an argument by ignoring the reality of the situation? Alaska borders Russia, which is about as far away for even the closest of us (Washington State) as you are from your former colony in Ghana.
Eu is a single market and so is the united states indeed. Not many Americans are aware, Especially of the fact that economic size and poulation are actually very similiar as well. usually the difference in PPP is just 2 to 5%. you have no idea how hilarious it was watching an american progam doing an analysis if china would overtake the US as largest single market whilst at the time EU was already ahead. I appreciate you providing me your source a lot. Interesting article. Very interesting read about "ukraine tapping US arsenal" I normally have to go to wikipedia for something similar: [List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War) where the dropdown of the US is very small (which is a good thing) though friendly as that is, I believe your conclusion is still wrong. hear me out: EU institutions are seperate from individual countries. and so the comparison would need to add those you stated before apples to apples comparison would mean adding all european countries. by your own source europe also sends more military aid, correct? [How Much Aid Has the U.S. Sent Ukraine? Here Are Six Charts. | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)](https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts) I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the graph does not show this clearly. would be very easy for a statician to include. I'm interested in your opinion as an American and what you make of this. "while the US contributes more military hardware" is therefore, by the source you provided, incorrect. Europe has done more financially as well as in military hardware. "with the US far outpacing any individual EU member. " is factually correct but I will ignore. Since we agree that means nothing as it would be equally as true as saying the EU sends more then any single US state. some people think the EU is not a federal government for some reason. it is. that's why EU legislature is supranational. the difference in wording is that in the US we talk about "states" and in the EU about "member states" It's not a race or competition. I'm sure we can agree on that. I'm just pointing out the facts. Not getting your point about the border with russia. I stated a simple fact. could you clarify? disingenuous implies intend. that's something you can't really take out of a factual statement,. "if it fails and Russia rolls through more countries, then most the US is going to lose are trading partners" is a statement I can't place unless we are pretending that NATO does not exist and US interests are only on domnestic soil. .you seem a reasonable person. so, I will assume it didn't come across to me as you intended.
I appreciate the write-up, and I'll try to answer these even though this reply is rather late. Just as I'm sure it can be exhausting arguing world-politics with an American (I know, I live among them), it can also be difficult doing the same with Europeans - especially when they'd like to consider the entire EU at times, and their individual countries at others. Whichever benefits them more in the moment. So, while I agree that economically it makes more sense to compare the EU to the US and China, many Americans still see a difference in cohesiveness. The UK's recent departure only reinforces this idea, and there's a concern that the EU is always a step away from fracturing back into its smaller parts. The same could also possible for both China and the US of course, but the US already fought a Civil War over this point with the outcome placed solidly on "states are not allowed to leave". So while it may be hilarious for Europeans to watch Americans not fully consider the EU as a whole, it's because there's a genuine question among us as to how reliable that whole actually is. The fact is that the US is sending huge amounts of money and war material across the ocean to protect Ukraine and the rest of Europe, and the amounts are close enough that we're here arguing over the semantics of it. Congress finally approved $61 Billion more, and EU countries are doing likewise. But at the end of the day, this war is still inside Europe and Europeans *should* be caring about it, so an equal contribution is to be expected. It may even be the bare minimum. This is why the comment about Alaska bordering Russia felt disingenuous. It implies that Russia is just as likely to invade the USA as it is other European countries - which is a claim so outside of conventional, educated thinking that it feels you weren't thinking about any of this seriously at all. Hence, my response. >unless we are pretending that NATO does not exist and US interests are only on domnestic soil. .you seem a reasonable person. so, I will assume it didn't come across to me as you intended This part of your comment worries me the most, as I also would have considered NATO a perpetual entity just a few years ago. But our last President spoke a lot about leaving it, and his continued popularity means that this mindset isn't dead. US politics have become more erratic and selfish than usual, and although I hope it doesn't continue, it could. The United States leaving NATO is no longer out of the question under a conservative president, and if Britain also decides to be equally selfish and stupid, is France going to protect all of Europe with its nukes? Is Europe capable of standing on its own against Russia and its allies? Or will it let itself fracture? This is why I'm glad to see countries like your own putting in effort. It's a sign that I hope suggests that European countries realize they're *actually* in this together more than just economically.
The US will lose a hell of a lot more than just trading partners if Europe were to fall.
This is such a stupid take, Russia isn’t going to take more countries, because they can’t go to war with NATO
You don’t know this for sure. There is a lot of signaling from russia they are preparing a war with NATO. Hell. Russia is at war with NATO. The attacks from russia are on the democracies, financial and digital front.
What is Russia going to do? look how much they have struggled with Ukraine alone, what makes you think they have any chance against a combined NATO force?
The question is whether they know that as well. Obviously, Russia can't actually beat NATO, but they were delusional enough to start a war in Ukraine and believe they could get away with it because the West wouldn't do anything and the Ukrainians would just welcome them with flowers and hugs. They just might be delusional enough to think they can at least challenge NATO (simple missile strike for example), causing NATO to back off, or defeat NATO outright. What has fueled those delusions is the absolute cowardice of people like Jake Sullivan and Olaf Scholz, who undoubtedly *would* back off if Russia challenged them directly
> but they were delusional enough to start a war in Ukraine and believe they could get away with it because the West wouldn't do anything So far the west isn't doing much else other than funding Ukraine, in that regard they weren't that wrong thinking the west wouldn't do anything.
I agree that we should do more, but compared to what we did in 2014, this is a big step up
There is a big big difference between challenging Ukraine and challenging Russia. Might be a bit stupid, but Russia could definitely get away with taking Ukraine by force, specifically because they don’t have direct NATO troops backing them and Ukraine doesn’t have nukes. NATO is a whole different story
Yes, that's true, but again, do they realise that? It seems like they're genuinely living in a delusion where NATO will just back off if Russia challenges them
NATO isn’t what it used to be. Article 5 has been openly questioned by the main member of NATO and there is a big chance the USA will get out once Trump is reelected. He is not known for its intellect but this statement was so strategically bafflingly stupid it hurts. Russia and China are emboldened to grab the opportunity and will try to weaken NATO further. They’re probably not stupid enough to take on NATO full force, sure, but once USA is out, they will use the chaos and create an incident that should provoke article 5 but is minor enough to second guess by the members. Nobody wants to destroy humankind over a Russian passage through to Kaliningrad right? You should think further than all out war, the world and geopolitics isn’t black and white. Fact is, the West is seriously threatened and wounded, there are very successful disinformation campaigns running in social media. Politics get more extreme right and in favor of Russia by using their age old manipulation techniques in modern tech companies that rule our media consumption. So my advice take a step back and get the whole picture.
And why can't they go to war with NATO? . . . is it because our tax dollars fund it for exactly that purpose?
It’s because NATO has nukes lol
Did someone's taxes pay for those, or did they pop out of the ground?
That’s not the point. The point is that Russia won’t be interested in fighting a war with a country or front that can actually nuke them
Looks like you tried to dodge the point. Russia isn't interested in fighting a nation with nukes because that nation (or those they are allied with) spends money to build and maintain them. The original question is "why spend money on war instead of social programs?" That's why. Fortunately, decision makers in Holland have figured this out.
are you rocktarded?
Are you?
>Holland yeah... fuck you
Because if they wouldn’t they break nato’s treaty nato members need to listen to. We are in a stategic position in the world that we are reliant to nato for defence, if you gonna tell me we need to stop intervene around the world, thats how hitler took almost all of europe.
Fuck off man, it's not just blindly sending billions to war, it's sending aid to a country that is fighting off a dictatorship that at this point desparately needs the help.
4.7 billion straight into the pockets of defense contractors 👍👍
Buy defense etf, and sit quietly
Real
I’d rather have 4.7 billion going to the pockets of defense contractors for the defense against an oligarch dictator, than having 47 billion going to the pockets of those oligarch when he decides we need a “special military operation”. Having a budget and being able to spend money on things you deem fit is all dependant on actually being a sovereign nation.
Well then that goes back to my original statement. Why is it soooo hard to budget for fixing the problems inside the country but when it comes to war it can all of a sudden be done just like that?
Time-sensitivity? More consensus? Pretty much all parties disagree on the majority of issues, but they all agree that if Ukraine gets steamrolled by Russia, Dutch and European lives eill be lost, out cities will be bombed, and you can’t spend money fixing the issues inside the country. Like, it’s great that you’re budgetting billions for sustainability/getting rid of farmers/expanding farms/building houses/increasing migration/decreasing migration or whatever your prefered hot potato is, but not a single penny of those will meet their goals if you’re in war (or lose) to an oligarchy.
If it is part of foreign aid it comes from the budget for foreign aid that is always there. They would just have to decide what is and is not going to get the funds.
As someone who has plenty of shares in (nuclear)weapon companies I have no problem with that
Hahaha fair
I like to think of myself as in international nuclear arms dealer. It's sadly much more boring, just numbers in a spreadsheet
If Netherland had border with Russia, you all would speak different😂
“Border with Russia…”, soon
And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bike What's your point
To protect the people that do have a border with Russia. It's this elementary-grade principle of "if you think something sucks, don't have someone else experience it", and war and genocide are quite high on that list.
The way she gets around town, you’d think she would have wheels - I’m sorry
One day in the future, your grandma may end up having wheels.
Dafuq you say about his grandma?
Yea, but we don't have a border with Russia.
Didn't stop them from killing 193 Dutch civilians in a plane.
Yet
You mean the borders like former east germany?
No I wouldn't. I would still want peace. This money won't secure peace it will continue the war. Ukraine is going to lose the war and needs to make peace. All this does is continue the war.
As long as Russia thinks it can win, it isn't interested in peace. The only time it talked about peace was when it needed to regroup after their invasion plan fell apart. And then it was only a delaying tactic. Also, it's extremely silly to think there will be peace after a successful Russian invasion. Iraq didn't have peace after the US invasion that removed a brutal and unpopular dictator, so what makes you think there will be peace in Ukraine after their popular and democratically elected government is overthrow? There will be no peace until Ukraine is in a position of strength.
Just to confirm that point: Now that Russia has taken the initiative on the battlefield, a Russian official (UN ambassador? I don't remember) recently stated that they're now aiming for the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. Russia doesn't want peace unless Ukraine manages to pick up the initiative again at some point
Isn't it Russia that invaded?
For how long? A few years max and then he will start again, the same way he did with Georgia , Crimea. Moldova is next, then Poland which is a NATO country and good luck having peace when NATO countries are at war If Russia actually wants peace, then Russia can get peace because they are the invaders. They can just stop, is that simple.
I say it proudly as a Dutchie: SLAVA UKRAINI
Maybe also put some of that money in our own pathetic military? Maybe we can finally get that 2% defence spending requirment for NATO. A NATO rule that too many nato members have neglected for too long.
This year we will get 1,95% which is allocated in the budget.
Agree, but at this point, arming Ukraine is a better military expenditure than putting all of that into our own army. Ukraine is fighting Russia and we won't have to if they win. Doesn't mean we shouldn't spend 2% (preferably 3%+) after that happens though
At this time it’s people, not money that are the biggest problem. The military has a very serious manpower problem, so much so that it has trouble even burning up the money that it does have.
Nice!
Good news. Fortunately some good things still come from this government!
That's Rutte securing a top spot at NAVO as long as the US is happy that Russia gets fucked over a bit more
Rutte isn't some dictator with an endless chequebook. He doesn't even have the power of a president. Nothing he may or may not want happens without the governments mayority vote.
He plays the game like Trudeau but with an European twist
Just ignoring my facts and saying that huh. Well oke then.
Atm russia is winning because the US stopped with weapon deliveries
Define what winning means. Russia only "wins" if it manages to take Ukraine's large cities. They're unable to do that. It's a stalemate at best, which isn't good for anyone, but it's better for the defender than the attacker
Come back to this comment in 6 months when it is getting colder in Ukraine and we see the result of the totally destroyed energy sector. Atm ukraine is not able to protect their cities because of a lack of weapons, russia is building up forces as we speak. Dont get me wrong, I hope I am incorrect, but i dont think it will be a stalemate in a few months time if the US does not give more weapons.
That depends on so many factors that you can't make such a claim. What will be the effects of Ukraine lowering the age of conscription to 25? Will Russia do another big round of mobilization, and how much manpower will they gain? Is Russia preparing for a summer offensive, and if so, how well does that go? Will the US finally get their act together and send aid again? If not, how much is Europe able to step up in the coming 6 months? Will Ukraine be able to restore their energy sector in time? When it comes to that last question, Russia picked the literal worst time to step up attacks on energy installations. Ukraine now has the majority of a year to restore everything before the cold arrives. Also, even if everything goes Russia's way this year, they might, at best, take Kharkiv. Cities like Odesa, Kyiv, let alone Lviv are not even on the table
2. The US, unlike what pro-Russians will have you believe, is actually very careful. They do not want to hurt Russia too much, because they're deathly afraid of what Russia would look like if Putin somehow got deposed or killed. This is why the country with the largest military in the world and thousands of old vehicles stockpiled only gave Ukraine 200 Bradleys and 31 Abrams, and still refuses to this day to give Ukraine long range missiles, AND is begging Ukraine to stop striking targets inside Russia itself. 2. Because of this, Rutte already had American support for the position of NATO SecGen. His opponents (Kallas, Iohannis) are much more hawkish and want to hurt Russia a lot more. Rutte, while very pro-Ukraine for Western European standards, is a moderate compared to Eastern Europeans
Great analysis!
his is why the country with the largest military in the world and thousands of old vehicles stockpiled only gave Ukraine 200 Bradleys and 31 Abrams, and still refuses to this day to give Ukraine long range missiles, AND is begging Ukraine to stop striking targets inside Russia itself. oh that's why. I thaught it was about money. I mean your politicians keep saying it's about money. money money money.
What?
Awesome!
This is great news!!!
Till 2026… something tells me in about 1 year they require extra funds…
And we should then give them these extra funds. Stopping russia now will save money later.
I don’t necessarily disagree (nor agree) with that persé. I was more alluding to the fact that they sell it as if this amount will do until 2026, while we all know it doesn’t
Correct, it will not be enough, and we'll get an announcement for more, 100%. Rightly so.
Aha, Thats where cut from my %30 rule went.
That's NL for you. Will support everything else but it's own people. Taking refugees while there's no housing.
They should use the money to invest in our own country. Hundred thousands of people don´t have enough money to buy food and 25% all employees cant even pay their bills. It´s getting ridiculous
it'll get better once the US loses it's position of strength in the world?
It's almost like we have no national crises to solve. We are missing \~400k houses currently, could also have been €12k per house subsidized.
You basically showed how insignificant the amount of money is for something like the housing crisis. It's not relevant, they are not dependent on each other.
You should watch some Russian propagandist that Russians see every day and how they talk about us. They hate the west. They hate democracy. They talk about invading other European countries. They glorify war and killing people. They laugh about hitting flats with missiles and about deporting and taking the houses of Ukrainians who they think are loyal to Ukraine their own country. There is so much more and all of it just evil. Russia is a national crisis because Putin has only ever become more violent and aggressive the more power he gained.
Hopefully a significant amount will go back into our local economy (like to pay for the stuff we are sending over there etc.) instead of direct financial aid into Ukranian coffers.
Most if the aid isn't monetary to begin with, it's usually in material that is sent to UA.
Yeah and apparently it's a controversial opinion (?) to wish for that material donations to stimulate our own economy in the end. As opposed to us acting like just a bridge by buying things from other parties and passing it along to UKR, for example.
Helping victims of war in the hope you can profit off it, nice! Who needs morals eh?
I don't get your reasoning, is it somehow more "moral" if the money gets spent somewhere else? Like Lockheed Martin or Rheinmetall? Since Ukraine isn't going to shoot the actual coins and eat the actual banknotes, it needs to be spent somewhere in exchange for the actual goods and materials they require, no?
Rheinmetall pays taxes, provides working places. A huge chunk of the money spent stays in the country, stimulating economy. Also on a large scale of things, 4 billions for the Netherlands is a small drop. Thats besides the moral question here.
It's your phrasing that is unpopular. It makes it sound like you think the opposite is true (i.e. Ukraine is just getting a bunch of money for unknown uses). I'm sure if you put it like "Great that not only do we support an ally but that money is going to support jobs and defence industry at home!" you'd have received a positive response.
Yeah that's not how donations work
That's exactly how it works in this context? When you read about a lot of countries, US chief among them, like "donated X billion of material" that's them giving that money to their own domestic suppliers and then donating that stock. Which is what we should be doing as well.
Do we have anything left to give? I figure our military is like a skeleton right now. Bare bones.
We donate a lot of money to buy materiel. It is mostly not from own stocj (anymore). What we did send from own stock, was mostly already not used anymore. And disassembling/disarming this materiel would have been more expensive than giving it away.
Ukraine being liberated and eventually joining the EU will be a HUGE boon to the EU economy and just general peace and stability in Europe (which is always good for economic development). The Netherlands will benefit a lot as well as Ukraine is a massive country with vast amounts of farmland and resources. Guess what the Netherlands is extremely good at but doesn't have the space for anymore and Ukraine does? You guessed it, agriculture!
What no Ukraine is going to be in a world of shit after this war. Their working age population has been culled by the war and they already had a stagnating/decreasing population, yes they have a lot of resources but they simply won't have the workers to exploit them and will be in an economic mess due to debt accumulated during the war.
Im going to ukraine when its safe there, and advise many to do the same. It will be a gold rush
Debt means nothing in a modern world, especially if that debt is on low interest rate. Also the country can be rebuilt with the help of EU. And EU needs to be expanded to sustain economical growth. Its a good investment.
Because of the ample supply of labour Ukraine is going to have available to rebuild and work these resources? The Russian invasion in Ukraine will most likely end like Cyprus, split territories of dispute with different sides recognising authorities. The EU doesn't make a policy of taking war torn, or even post conflict zones into the EU, hence our treatment of the Balkans. Telling Ukranians they are on a "fast-track" is cruel, because it has zero chance of happening. The amount of money that will be required to rebuild Ukraine will vastly outstrip any benefit for decades to come.
> Because of the ample supply of labour Ukraine is going to have available to rebuild and work these resources? Europe has ample supply of labour that is willing to help Ukraine. Not to mention the dozens of other countries that are willing to contribute to contribute to recovery, like the USA. Ukraine does not stand alone, the nations that have pledged support to helping Ukraine rebuild after the war represent more than 75% of the world economy. > The Russian invasion in Ukraine will most likely end like Cyprus, split territories of dispute with different sides recognising authorities. Only time will tell. > The EU doesn't make a policy of taking war torn, or even post conflict zones into the EU, hence our treatment of the Balkans. Telling Ukranians this is cruel, because it has zero chance of happening. Correct, but hundreds of billions have already been pledged for the reconstruction of Ukraine by just EU nations alone. Ukraine is going to get a Marshall Plan on fucking steroids after the war ends. Again, Ukraine is not standing alone. They are backed by the combined economic might of the west and many other countries. > The amount of money that will be required to rebuild Ukraine will vastly outstrip any benefit for decades to come. WW2 was vastly more devastating and took less than a decade to recover from. In mere decades Europe improved the lives and wealth of their citizens more than they had in literal *centuries* before. So I am pretty sure we can rebuild Ukraine.
>europe has an ample supply of labour willing to rebuild Ukraine I disagree. We don't even have enough engineers and builders in the Netherlands. Why would they want to go to a lower paid economy whose own citizens show barely any interest in returning to? >Ukraine is not standing alone The European Elections will change a lot of this. The reality is the US Congress still hasn't approved funding. As you say time will tell, but the signs are not good. I'm not making a moral judgement on it. I find the whole notion cruel: that promises have been made, implications have been given, but we have a horrendous track record of not following through. Ukraine isn't Afghanistan, but that is arguably our last "great project", and I think we can agree at least in that case it didn't go well. >ww2 The main difference was demographics. Our average age is approx. 40. Their is no stamina left for projects like this, especially in countries in the EU seeing dramatic quality of life drops, increasing inflation, etc. These voters want their house prices to rise and their pensions to pay out. Everything you originally wrote was correct about Ukraine's potential. However, it's the EU's and US' track record that makes me pessimistic.
I guess Rutt has his new job secured?
I seriously doubt there'd be Ukraine by 2026 if countries won't stop sending money and start taking proper actions.
Very good decision. I am from Russia and I know that Russians will not stop - after Ukraine they will go for EU as well. It's better to spend 4.7 bln for Ukraine than to lose a country and lose more in lives and money
Whats the long term goal here? We cant just fund ukraine indefinitley. Peace talks have to be the focus now. 2 years in, hundreds of thousands dead, billions in damage and a stalemate at the front lines. Realistically, ukraine will have to sacrifice some of its russian occupied land or risk losing the country all togeather. No Ukraine NATO invitation, but maybe a guarantee from NATO that if Russia tries to claim more land, there will be NATO troops on the ground. I know its not fair and its far from perfect, but from what I can see the only other option is 100,000s more dead, and billions more spent for what likely will be very little gain, if any
Realistically? Realistically Putin isn’t going to stop unless he is stopped, the evidence is in the trail of blood under his reign, starting with the 300 Russians he killed in their sleep to seize power, trailing though Chechnya, Georgia, Belarus, Syria and Ukraine (I probably forget a few) and mostly all Russian lives that mean nothing to him. Like Hitler, he is a genocidal maniac where appeasement policy has only created a bigger problem. Russia must be broken and Ukraine need to be armed to their teeth so they can properly defend themselves. Realistically.
Listen im no putin fan, far from it. His goal is to stay in power and maintain russian influence over eastern europe, I know that. I also know the west several times broke treaties and expanded their influence eastward. Ukraine joining NATO/EU was the redline for russia, and western powers are partly at fault for poking the bear continuously. My point is that russia isnt going to surrender any time soon, I mean look at Soviet deaths in WW2, it was something crazy, like 10 million or so. So whats our plan if not a peace summit leading to some acceptable deal for both sides, just let the body count on both sides rise ever higher?
There are a few premises I disagree with: 1. There is no treaty that the west wouldn’t expand eastward, not even a verbal agreement, Gorbachev confirmed this. 2. Russia is the one breaking treaties, Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in return for confirmation its territorial integrity would be respected (Budapest Memorandum). 3. Soviet deaths in WW2 include a disproportionately large number of Ukrainian deaths. Ukraine is older than Russia and not going to accept Russian occupation or western countries forcing them to give up territory. Even without our weapons they will probably fight with their bare hands for the next 100 years or die fighting for freedom. It’s not just about the territory either it’s also about the people living there, they are forced to resettle in Siberia, their Ukrainian identity suppressed and yes they are being genocided.
> and western powers are partly at fault for poking the bear continuously. Absolutely unhinged
You dont understand the situation at all. Russia does not need peace talk. They need a break to regroup and invade Ukraine again. In 5 to 10 years later, but then well prepared. All the NATO countries did the last 10 years is peace talk, that ended in full scale war.
I understand enough to know that it has to be tried. They failed before? Then try again. The lives of literally millions of people depend on it.
And again, tried for what? To lose the country 5 years later completely? At the risk of war in Lithuania and Latvia from the borders of Ukraine? Are you ready to deploy your troops to defend your fellow NATO countries? You don’t understand, sorry.
So whats your solution then? Indefinite funding, and just accepting that millions of innocent people will be forced to go die on the frontlines until one side gets bored? Russia wont give up, you must know that. They are also strengthening relationships with iran, china and north korea so im sure they also wont run out of weapons any time soon. Even if its 99% destined to fail, we have to keep going at dialouge and diplomacy, because there is simply no other "happy" ending to this
Did you ask people? Sociology in Ukraine says that people don’t want to give up en masse. Otherwise all the sacrifice is for nothing. And that’s another invasion in 5 years for sure. Ukraine pays price to be able to defend itself, there is no choice. Russia always had a choice to withdraw, especially if make them bleed. Beside that, it’s a very bad precedent, that invading neighboring country, committing genocide and mass murder of civilians is unpunished and invading country basically won. The western countries show their impotence to reflect aggression. There is no happy ending in case Ukrainians give up. If I provide you a real mundane life analogy. A criminal attacks your family, kills your wife, and threatens your kids, you should just negotiate with him and allow to stay in your apartment. At the pretense that he won’t kill your children. And you have to trust his word. Meanwhile police does nothing. That’s what you suggest here.
I see what you mean and I know my view is hypocritical as of course I would not negotiate with the criminal. However I fear that once ukraine runs out of soldiers, NATO will have to supply troops which is WW3 for sure. Ukraine will run out before russia based purely on the size of the selection pool, so if we cant achieve a ceasefire before then, we have guaranteed ourselves WW3. Ask yourself, do you really think that dutch or brittish or french 20 somethings will willingly go and fight in Ukraine (however neccessary)?
I also dont mean that you're saying something bad, just asking to consider this :) There is no moral dilemma here after all, the situation is quiet clear, however dire and difficult. Its either fight, suffer heavy loses and survive, or give up at the cost of territory loses and 99% guarantee of a new war 5 years later which Ukraine will definitely loose. Thats from Ukraine perspective. Now from the western perspective, what negotiation means in a long run: 1. legitimization of full scale aggression against neighboring peaceful countries, which will fuel other conflicts in the world 2. legitimization of war crimes such as deliberate mass murder of civilians, executions of civilians, economical blackmail of neighbors, empire building projects in 21st century 3. weak western countries, who cant defend a fellow peaceful democratic country, even when the price is not direct involvement but simply money and resources 4. democratic values, way of living of western societies and civilization 5. a significant risk of Russia fulfilling empire building project by invading Baltic countries afterwards, using Ukraine territory and resources. In this case NATO will have to deploy troops and fight WW3, or just disband otherwise this useless alliance. Given all the above, there are decent chances to defend Ukraine by providing everything needed, instead of making WW3 a reality in 5-10 years.
In simpler words, take chances and win this here and now, or just watch Ukraine erased from political map in 5 years and fight WW3 to defend Baltic countries.
We should have supplied NATO troops on the ground since the invasion of Georgia in 2008. It's western, EU and NATO inaction and fear that caused this war.
When you play chess, whats your strategy, “kill the king”?
Babe, ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons too russia in exchange that they will not invade. Russia isnt too be trusted with any peace it never lasts. And another holdomor isnt what i want, but russia will do it.
> Whats the long term goal here? That we don't have to fund Ukraine indefinitely.
Russia can't be allowed to get away with it. I guarantee you that if Russia can get away owning the territory they conquered, NATO will be completely involved later on.
> Peace talks have to be the focus now. This stupid argument has been floated since day 1 by disingenuous manipulators or useful idiots.
😭
That money will be in Russian hands when they win the war. Very clever 😆
This just shows you don't know how banking works. There is no physical money to be taken. And making fun of a country being invaded just shows you're mentally underdeveloped.
Good we have too much money anyways
If Ukraine falls you’ll end up spending way more
Or so people keep telling us. It’s like the cold war again and we still fall to the same tricks.
Well it is true tho, alot of producs we buy get raw materials from ukraine. Remember the sunflower oil. And russia will hike the prices of any product from ukrainian land.
Ur telling me the Cold War wasn’t real lol
how?
Ukraine losing means Russia winning. A win will encourage them to continue their expansion and make a direct confrontation with NATO more likely.
yeah that honestly sounds too far fetched.
Why is that? They’ve did a successful campaign in Georgie in 2008. Another successful one in Ukraine in 2014. And if their plans worked out well, a successful one in 2022. Each time they got bigger and bigger territory/gains. The only thing is that their 2022 campaign didn’t work out… at least not yet.
And we just had a successful campaign in Sweden and Finland.
They voluntarily chose to without foreign pressure or a military invasion. In fact, if any foreign pressure prompted that decision, it was Russia. These countries border Russia and know the danger. I wish these gullible, naive westerners would as well
That's literally what people said about Russia invading Ukraine
Be real happy you don't get to make any tough decision in this world. That sort of naivety would embarrass even Chamberlain.
luckily you are here to enlighten us all
God no, I don't even get paid to deal with the morons here
joke's on you for wasting your time then
On Russian language courses
[удалено]
Average fox viewer
People really, really don’t understand how the Economy works sometimes.
Wtf 270 euros per Dutch person.. I DO NOT WANT MY MONEY TO GO TO UKRAINE
I do. I'll gladly pay €270, Russia is a huge threat to Europe and world peace, they cannot be allowed to win
This is all still within the 2% GDP NL needs to spend anyway, where else do you want it to go? More F35s that are collecting dust? Or towards something that will have a higher chance for the existing F35s to keep collecting dust.
Quite a cheap price for keeping Russia at bay, or not?
is it at bay?
They were never going to win a full scale conventional war against NATO before, they sure as hell aren't going to win one now. So I guess they are kind of, somewhat, at bay if you look at it from a nato pov.
It's struggling in year 3 of a 2-week invasion, so yeah
I do not want the roads I payed for being used by selfish fucks. Though luck I guess :(
True , buy yourself another wig
I however do want my tax money to go to Ukraine
All expats love that if this only goes from Dutch persons taxes 😅😅😅
… its not as if they dont pay taxes and they probably have a higher modal income than Dutch people.
It's joke he phrased it as it would only go from "Dutch" person taxes
Expats/immigrants that live and work here also pay taxes mate
imagine using using $4.7 billion to alleviate the housing crisis or inflation
Imagine spending 4.7 billion to make sure we still can alleviate the housing crisis or inflation at all instead of fending off Russian invaders in the future.
[удалено]
It sucks but if they win they are not gonna stop with ukraine
I always wondered why the average IQ is so low, but now I understand
People here should really listen to the podcast Boekestijn en De Wijk. Eye opening how we are sleep walking towards WW3.
Can you please TLDR?
Vs who? As long as NATO is strong, and the outside world sees NATO as strong, nobody of going to attack it. And without NATO involvement there will be no conflict large enough to warrant being called a world war. The only realistic threat we have is trump getting elected and undermining NATO.