LONDON, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Britain is sending around 200 air defence missiles to Ukraine to help protect civilians and infrastructure from Russian drones and bombing, the British ministry of defence said on Friday.
The shipment comes as Russia unleashed one of its biggest missile attacks on Ukraine of the war, according to Kyiv, killing 18 civilians and wounding dozens others.
“(Russian President Vladimir) Putin is testing Ukraine’s defences and the West’s resolve, hoping that he can clutch victory from the jaws of defeat. But he is wrong,” British Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said.
It shouldn’t take a massive night of bombing and death on innocent Ukrainians for any of us NATO/Western countries to do this, but I also won’t look a gift horse in the mouth. I’m upset my country (US) is dragging its ass at the cost of Ukrainian lives.
The US government doesn’t care when its own citizens are being killed, why would they suddenly spring to action when Ukrainian citizens are being killed?
Maybe Ukrainians should start wearing kippah so Congress gets confused and sends them money and weapons.
/s but actually /exorcistvomit
True. But, they probably need more ammo after last night. So, it’s still good. BTW, the US announced a new package yesterday.
The US package was only 200 million. Which is nice but that’s like what, 1/5th of a single F35 for us. They’re going against a much larger adversary so I’m hoping we can give them more support again than just 200 million.
For sure the package was modest and the money has run out. Congress needs to get their act together
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
For the context of this article the US has provided 43.9 billion in military aid (defined as military equipment or weapons) as opposed to the UK’s 6.57 Billion. By a large margin that is the most tangible assistance provided to Ukraine than any other country participating. The US could provide more funding, but money is not nearly as useful as already produced and available military equipment in the immediate term. I just hope the US can continue to assist, but Congress won’t pass anything it seems (see the less than 25 bills passed this session).
I mean the US also has more money to throw around. Of course they’ve sent substantially more. If you look at it by GDP, they’re pretty similar, with the UK giving 0.37% and the US giving 0.33% (I was unable to get extremely recent data, though, this only goes up to this summer).
Nor is it easy to quantify everything. How much value do you assign for the US using their soft power to encourage other countries to help, or at the very least not hinder the Ukrainian side, or settling Turkey down in their shenanigans that are destabilising NATO?
How much do you assign for the UK being the first to send NATO-standard tanks and long distance missiles, leading to others doing the same? How much value do you assign the extensive military training they’ve been giving Ukrainian troops?
How much do you assign for either of the two providing their world-leading special intelligence services to Ukraine?
I don’t think tit-for-tat “well my country provides more” discussions are particularly helpful. When we see other countries helping we need to applaud and say that’s based af, we should do that too, not get defensive out what we’ve provided.
Not an argument at all but rather a discussion on what has been provided. I think we’re both in the same page in terms of support for Ukraine. We can always do more but I just wanted to provide insight into what has been done. Unfortunately the US isn’t all aligned on this issue which causes the roadblock.
From a policy perspective what would you like to see from the US?
That means that the UK has actually provided about 20% more aid as a fraction of their GDP (0.212%) compared to the US (at 0.173%).