NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has welcomed the delivery of the first package of U.S. military equipment for Ukraine under the Alliance’s new Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative, fully funded by the Netherlands.
The announcement, made on 4 August, marks the first operational step in a scheme designed to channel regular, high-value aid packages to Ukraine based on its most urgent battlefield needs.
“I commend the Netherlands for taking the lead and turning this initiative into concrete support on the ground, building on the steps taken last week by Germany to deliver more Patriot systems to Ukraine,” Rutte said.
“This is about getting Ukraine the equipment it urgently needs now to defend itself against Russian aggression. The aim of all Allied assistance to Ukraine is to bring the war to a just and lasting end, in support of President Trump’s peace efforts. I have written to all NATO Allies, urging them to contribute towards this burden sharing initiative, and I expect further significant announcements from other Allies soon.”
The PURL framework, agreed during the NATO Summit in The Hague, is funded by European Allies and Canada, and will deliver packages worth around $500 million each. These will include equipment and munitions identified by Ukraine as operational priorities, such as air defence, ammunition and other critical supplies.
NATO says the initiative complements existing bilateral aid and ongoing support mechanisms, including the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) Trust Fund and the Comprehensive Assistance Package.
The concept was formalised on 14 July, when Rutte met U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House. The United States will provide equipment in greater volumes than European or Canadian industries can supply alone, with procurement and delivery coordinated by NATO. The NSATU command in Wiesbaden will work with Kyiv and Washington to validate each package, ensuring they match Ukrainian operational requirements. Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Alexus Grynkewich will oversee this process.
NATO officials say the Netherlands’ funding is only the first in what is intended to be a series of regular contributions from across the Alliance, ensuring predictable supply and sustained pressure on Russian forces.
I bet people in America feel so good about themselves now that their president has managed to get $500 million paid by a small country in Europe.
What a great achievement MAGA
Selling the US reputation down the swanny for a couple of quid.
🇺🇸🫡
America’s moral decline is matched by their economic and military declines.
Europe needs to muscle up to the point where we can tell the Russians to get out of Ukraine and Belarus on our own.
Labour’s current plan which works out at 5% growth a year over the next ten would do as our part of that.
It can only be paid for by benefit reform and surprise surprise, via Reform the FSB is blocking that.
It’s about time the Netherlands started pulling its weight in collective defense. After years of underinvestment, they’ve got significant catching up to do. Hopefully, they actually reach 2% of GDP this year.
Hopefully America can stop leeching off of Europe, after a decade + of us backing up the US in it’s stupid Sandbox wars only for Trump to chicken out and run away it now exepects us to fund it’s Ukraine support. Hopefully the US learns to fund it’s own misadventures in the future.
So you expect the U.S. taxpayer to fully fund military support for a war in Europe while most European countries continue to underinvest in their own defence, with some still falling short of the 2% GDP target? And you blame this on our decisions to go to Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems like your dislike of Trump is clouding your ability to think this through rationally.
You forget that Russia can almost be seen from the US, it’s that close !
JJ, To say that the U.S. is fully funding military support to Ukraine is very wrong. Many European nations have been very generous in their aid to Ukraine….and many have gifted, not sold, military equipment…as well as some have donated money for reconstruction efforts and delivered training too.
45 sovereign nations have supplied aid since Feb 2022. Major contributors have been:
United States
European Union and its Member States
United Kingdom
Germany
Canada
Australia
European countries have sent significantly more military aid than the USA, when evaluated in monetary terms.
Graham, I’m unable to reply directly, so I hope you see this.
I suggest you review the comments again, as I never stated or implied that the US is fully funding military support to Ukraine. I was simply asking a question, as indicated by the question mark.
@MrFibble, I’m assuming this is a joke…?
Great credit to the Netherlands for stepping up. Wish we had more Allie’s like them.
The concern should be, what is The orange cock womble in chief going to offer pootin when they next meet, who knows talk is exchange of territory. So does that mean Alaska in exchange for a trump hotel in an upmarket area of Moscow maybe??
Bleak, I like your example. We know that Russia will insist that Ukraine hands back the ‘lost’ part of Kursk province and agrees to surrender the entirety of the Donbass region to Russia. Russia will give no territory to Ukraine, except maybe one or 2 insignificant villages. Trump will claim it as his idea. Its presented to Zelensky who rejects it and Zelensky is then painted as the unreasonable party and will suffer conseqences.
The implication that America should be funding these weapons is as naive as it is morally bankrupt.
There is a war on European soil, primarily threatening European countries, not America. It has partially brought about by European appeasement of Putin, and military and political weakness being shown towards Moscow. To this day, European countries are still buying oil and gas from Russia, funding their war machine. America rightly warned Europe not to become reliant upon Russia, and they were ignored. America rightly warned Europe not to become complacent on defence spending, and they were ignored. And now America, which has provided as much if not more financial and materiel aid to Ukraine than all European countries put together; has the only defence industry that can possibly supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs in sufficient quantities, despite the fact that we are 3.5 years (!!!!!) into this war. And many on here see it as some sort of slight, that America, who is still spending about twice as much on its military than all European countries put together (despite having similar sized economies overall), is not providing these weapons for free.
Why exactly should the country spending 3.4% of its economy on defence, be expected to pay for the military aid, rather than have European countries who are still barely spending 2% of GDP on average? Furthermore, it is the Europeans who benefit more from the aid given the proximity.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would probably have a bigger impact on the global economy than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And Europeans are only paying lip service to that threat, if even. I can already hear the excuses from those on hear about that (“not our fight”, “America’s problem” etc). Why wouldn’t or shouldn’t America feel the same about Ukraine?
I just can’t get my head around the sheer hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking on the topic. Nevermind the lack of gratitude for who has kept us secure in recent decades, irrespective of the current situation.
The US and Europe are a formidable alliance, but this constant criticism of the American perspective, which has in large part been proven to be right on the mark, is not helping at all.
It is the inconsistency and incompetence which is pissing people off.
Key points
1) the U.S. and Germany led the appeasement of Russia over Ukraine..with the British government backing them right up…infact if all nations it’s the U.S. and UK that should hold their heads in shame over the 2014 appeasement of Russia..because our two nations both signed a document saying we would guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty… which we did not…the US gets 50% of that and does not get a free pass.
2) the U.S. created the European defence landscape, let’s be very very very clear the US wanted Europe dependent on it for key enablers and leadership and spent 55 years working so Europe would not go its own way and was instead a part of US foreign policy.. so to Europeans the US now going on about Europe not sorting out its own house sounds a bit fucked up.. it’s like a husband always controlling is wife, then complaining because she has lost the ability and confidence to make her own decisions.
3) most European nations were alway clear as day that they would support the U.S. in the pacific and have the USAs back.. it’s only now this is fraying.. and that’s all on US foreign policy. Let’s be clear.. the present US administration has quite clearly told France and the UK it would quite like them to piss off from the world geopolitical stage ( including the pacific) and let the US get on with its business..
4) the U.S. administration treating Russia like a potential friend, to the extent of treating Ukraine like the causes of the conflict..
So let’s be very clear..Europe will have the back of the US as long as the US has its back.. but almost every message from the present US administration is that..
1) it thinks Europe needs to look after itself and the U.S. would rather not be involved
2) it wants Europe to piss off our of international geopolitics and leave it to the big boys.. Russia, the U.S. and China.
3) it sees Europe as a competitor and not a partner
Essentially if those three messages continue you will see an number of things happen over time
1) Europe will rebuild its military independence from the U.S.
2) Europe will begin competing geopolitically with the U.S.
3) when ( and not if ) there is a sino US war Europe may ( and it depends how far the US and Europe have split) end up staying Neutral ( and that would be catastrophic for the US as it’s a war it could without European support loss).
It’s all a bit counter productive because in reality Russia is almost a none entity..in that it’s not even been able to successfully invade what is a next door neighbour second world nation… it could not in the long run win a war against the core European powers acting in concert..its economy and industrial capacity are smaller than all the 4 major European powers.. but china is now a superpower with a blue water navy and massive economic power..it can significantly hurt both the U.S. and Europe..is naval production is off the scale compared to the U.S. and it will within a decade have an overwhelming advantage over the USN…and Russia is its ally.. the U.S. and European powers should have been in complete lockstep to isolate and destroy both Russian and Chinese geopolitical power..instead they have almost split.. and because china is the greater threat and is more focused on the US it’s going to be the US that probably suffers most from this.
1) You are misinterpretting the Budapest Memoradum, was signed by UK, US and Russia, in which the signatories guaranteed not to use military force against Ukraine (except in self defence) in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons. The signatories did not sign up to defend Ukraine against external attack. Only Russia has violated these terms.
2) This is entirely conjecture and opinion. Yes, Europe is dependent on the US to an extent, which has some advantages to the US, but also has many disadvantages, which is clearly showing right now. Europe was happy to spend its peace dividend elsewhere (many times over), despite warnings against this, and it has now come back to bite Europe in the ass. The decimation of European defence industries is primarily the result of a lack of European defence spending, not American industrial strategy, which has indirectly benefited from the lack of economies of scale in European defence industries.
3) I think most people can see there is very little evidence of Europe being “always clear as day that they would support the U.S. in the pacific and have the USAs back”. The UK can just about scrape a CSG together once every four years, as can France and Italy. There is very little European ambition to provide much more than strong words as a deterrent to China. If Europe wants to be considered as an equal to the US it should be willing to at least have contingency plans to forward deploy assets in the event of such a crisis. Even within the UK we have adopted a “NATO first” policy, which is telling in itself as its clear that means Europe first, with no regard to NATO’s Pacific borders. The US telling Europe to stay out of the Pacific is based on the current dire situation of European defence, and trying to get the most out of our current very limited resources, and would not be the case if Europe was actually pulling its weight and had more resources available (as we should).
4) Trump has unconvential political strategies, which I don’t always agree with and don’t always work. But reaching a political settlement in Ukraine is probably the only way forward. And the sooner the better. It used to be in this country we talked about the sensless loss of life in the trenches of WW1 for the sake of a few miles of mud; how stupid it was and how we should never let it happen again, that we should negotiate our way out of that complete misery. But the sheer amount of people advocating precisely for that situation continuing in Ukraine is mind boggling. I suspect many on here would feel differently if it was their own life, or the lives of their family members and friends, on the line. The lack of respect and value of human life is crazy.
I largely agree with the second half of your analysis, except that the US sees Europe as a competitor, not a partner and wants it to p*** off. I think the US sees Europe as a disparate group of countries, that can’t effectively work together other than economically via the EU, which has taken the p*** with tariffs for too long. They are setting that right, and Ireland’s economy will be the sacrificial lamb in that trade off. But Europe is a fading economic power, unlike the US, and its demographics suggest that is only going to worsen. Demographic reality might ultimately be the thing that slows down the Chinese military build up. We have to deter for as long as we can until that happens. I’m not optimistic that the West has the ability (or stomach) to do this though. An Indian military expansion, accompanied by closer integration of India into Western spheres, might be the saving grace, if China realises it can’t take on the West, India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea simultaneously.
The Budapest agreement went deeper than that, essentially the Uk US and Russia agreed to guarantee the sovereignty of Ukraine, explicitly within that was that they ( UK and US) would use the UN and every possible diplomatic and economic means to guarantee the sovereignty…essentially what the present US administration is doing goes specifically against that agreement and what previous administration did was not in anyway what you would call a maximum effort within the spirt of the agreement, even if actions were not specified it was understood that actions ( none direct military) would be undertaken if Russia ever broke the agreement ( and it was always about Russia breaching the agreement) and those actions would continue until Russia was no longer in violation of the agreement.
It’s very interesting in that the failure of the Budapest agreement in protecting Ukrainian has essentially had a massive impact on the future use of security assurances/guarantee.. what is very interesting is that essentially Ukraine got screwed due to it thinking it had something different than it did.. the Ukrainian language interpretation of “ security assurance “ is “security guarantee” essentially the Ukrainian government and people absolutely believe that the U.S. ( and UK) screwed them.. this is important because this assurance related to nuclear disarmament..and essentially what Ukraine says and other small nations now believe is that the assurance of the U.S. nuclear umbrella is not worth the paper it’s written on.
A really good Lisen on the Budapest agreement can be found on the brooks institute web site “The Budapest Memorandum at 20: The United States, Ukraine and Security Assurances” its a very good lisen, one of the key U.S. negotiators on the agreement was part of the podcast and lecture and he stated that “ we made it clear in the negotiations that we would provide lethal support as part of the assurance”. When they really get into it a the US diplomats on the panel start to rip into each other about intent, expectations and understanding.. infact apparently Clinton went over to Ukraine and made verbal assurances the US would stand completely behind Ukraine if Russia broke the agreement because Ukraine was so twitchy.
As for point 2, this is not conjecture and opinion, it’s part of the historic record, the US set up the European defence structure and specificity and purposefully lead it.. even during the Cold War when Europe was spending 4-5% on defence it did not have the structural command and control to defend itself without the U.S..the entire structure of the NATO alliance is designed to be completely dependent on the U.S.. infact if the U.S. pulled out of NATO the entire alliance would simply end as it’s structured to be overseen by Washington as part of the treaty agreement and many of the articles cannot structurally function without Washington. I don’t disagree that European nations went to deep on the peace dividend.. but when you look at the U.S. and it’s global commitments also cut profoundly deeply compared to the enemy it faces..
For 3 In regards to china, just because we only send a Carrier battle group to the pacific one every four years is irrelevant. Because any U.S. sino war is going to be a global conflict, China and the U.S. when the start knocking the shit out of each other will only start in the western pacific, as soon as that campaign burns out ( and it will burn out after a few months with the decimation of both the PLAN and USN) china and the US will begin to attack each other across the globe you will see china and the U.S. fighting it out in the Indian Ocean, Middle East, Africa and even the high north as each tries to strangle the other.. this strangling and isolating will go on for years.. this is where European support matters.. because the UK and France would be massive in facing down the Chinese in the Indian Ocean.. infact it would be nonsensical to send the UKs carrier battle group all the way to the pacific..it would make more sense for the UK and France to take over control and domination of the Indian Ocean.. freeing a U.S. carrier battle group and amphibious group from the Indian Ocean to move to the pacific… the European frigate and destroy navies would essentially provide the depth of major surface combatants to keep fighting for years, because most of the USN major surface combatants would be at the bottom of the pacific after year one…and the US does not have the industrial capacity to replace its losses. Everyone has always been clear on the western boarder of NATO.. it’s the continental US, not the whole pacific, the US is the nation that constructed it that way because it’s never been keen on European nations having pacific interests and wanted NATO to end at its western shorelines.. but it’s very clear if china attacks the continental US NATO will trigger article five.
The US see Europe as small independent nations not the EU, that is true and it’s also the problem and Europe is very much now in reality the EU, the U.S. does not like it but the future of Europe is the EU, love it or hate that’s the truth and the EU has not taken the piss any more than the US has, infact the U.S. has always been more protectionist than the EU. Yes the U.S. would much prefer Europe to be a disparate group of small nations that don’t interfere with its global ambitions.. but it has the EU and it does not like that much, who wants a large competitor ?
In regards to demographic’s and china.. I do think people really overstate this.. the truth of demographic timebombs is they are driven by nations essentially falling down the rabithole of western health systems…in which you push a vast fortune in resources into keeping someone alive into their 80s for just another year.. Chinese life expectancy is still only 77 and they don’t seem much interested in upping that… the advantages of a communist state that has a population that at it heart believes in the concept of suffering means you don’t have to spend a few hundred thousand pounds per person just to try and keep them alive for a couple more years.. essentially if you don’t mind your old folks dropping dead in their 70s your not going to get a major hit..yes china will have a population drop..but we are talking about a nation or 1.4 billion people.. their so-called demographic timebomb will essentially mean it’s population moves from 1.4 billion now to 1.3 billion in 2050..that’s going to do f%ck all to stop china steamrolling the US in the 2030s.. at the same time the US will essentially have a population of old people, making up 25% of its population.. infact the only reason the US would not see the same drop is because is probably going to be spending 37% of its entire gross national product on Healthcare in 2050… even by 2033 the US is on course to spend 8.7 TRILLION dollars a year on healthcare… when people go on about the Chinese demographic timebomb it does make me piss myself..the US is literally going to be spending every penny it has on old f%cks that’s a demographic time bomb.. china will just pop them to bed let them die and build a shed Load more surface combatants with the money. Japan is even more buggered.. by 2070 it’s actually going to be essentially old people with 40% being over 65 and losing 30% of its population at the same time.. add that to is 236% national debt and japans got a snowballs chance in hell in the long term.. I fully expect Japan to simply go nuclear and step away from the world at some point as the only way to essentially ensure its independence.
India is a very interesting question.. personally I think India is very much set on being neutral.. it will use its population and developing nuclear deterrent to essentially keep out of everyone’s business.. China is not stupid, it’s very happy to have India as a large powerful neutral trading nation as a market and essentially safe space..china is not traditionally expansionist, its focus is essentially on fulfilling its own destiny, which means being whole and controlling its local seas and access as well as being acknowledged as one of the key great powers.. china and India can sit side by side because essentially neither really has a red line that interferes with the other.. but what they both have is a shared history of western interference and because of that a distrust if western based international norms… it would be nice if India came to the west.. but it would surprise me as both India and china have to much to loss if they really start to but against each others red lines.
Carrickter, I don’t agree with much of that. You suggest that America has every right to be uninvolved ie isolationist. But the US is not isolationist elsewhere; indeed to be a global leader is part and parcel of being the world’s only superpower. The US was very eager to get involved in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and to massively support South Korea and Taiwan…so why not have an interest in European security?
Very few European countries still buy gas and oil from Putin’s Russia – only those who have not found an alternative supply, and supply by Russia is in small quantities.
Britain introduced the NATO 2% target when chairing a NATO meeting in Wales in 2014. The vast majority of European NATO countries hit the current 2% target. Some European countries are spending at a very high level. All agree to accept the new 3.5 plus 1.5% target. I do praise Trump for being critical of under-spending Europeans in his first term though.
America has not ‘provided as much if not more financial and materiel aid to Ukraine than all European countries put together’. European contributions exceed those of the US, and have also included cash for future reconstruction and training of Ukrainian military personnel. The US was slow to agree to supply heavy weapons such as tanks and were shamed into following a European lead.
America, who may well still be ‘spending about twice as much on its military than all European countries put together’, but that is because they are they world’s only superpower with a global leadership role. Welcome to the role once inhabited by Britain at her height. Most European countries have no requirement to have multiple aircraft carriers, bluewater navies with scores of submarines, bases around the world, a triad of nuclear weapons including strategic bombers etc. It has always been bizarre that Americans want the global leadership role, pay the price in terms of the military machine required, then criticise other nations who do not have that role or requirement for huge and exotically equipped forces and so spend markedly less.
If the Ukraine war should be nothing to do with the US, and all to do with Ukraine and her European partners, then why does Trump not invite Ukraine and those Europeans to the Alaska talks? Why does he want to chair them if this is not truly a war of interest to America and Americans?