He's not saying withdrawing was a bad move - he just finds fault with the way the Biden admin managed it. He says they should've gotten all the military hardware out before withdrawing the troops.
With the benefit of hindsight, that was about $7 billion* worth of hardware Ukraine could've used.
Man...Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real public health risk in the US.
Also, while this guy's obviously had mental health issues before, I've noticed that the part about him having finally lost his marbles over the Trump victory has been censored/ignored in pretty much all Western mainstream press. But the Times of India did include that bit in their report.
Another example of the press in the West having abandoned their duty as reporters and instead adopted the role of propaganda outlets not unlike the CCP's Global Times, but with a bit more ambiguity regarding who they serve.
FFS, just inform the people and let them make up their own opinions. Don't seek to tell them what to think - they're adults, not kindergarten children.
He's not saying withdrawing was a bad move - he just finds fault with the way the Biden admin managed it. He says they should've gotten all the military hardware out before withdrawing the troops.
Trump's plan was to withdraw several months earlier than Biden, so how would that have ended any differently?
I personally would have pretended to be pulling out, draw the Taliban out into the open and then bring the hammer down with mass airstrikes everywhere. I may even have waited a few years after and done the same thing again and kept doing it until I had strained out every one of the little b@stards.
Trump's plan was to withdraw several months earlier than Biden, so how would that have ended any differently?
I personally would have pretended to be pulling out, draw the Taliban out into the open and then bring the hammer down with mass airstrikes everywhere. I may even have waited a few years after and done the same thing again and kept doing it until I had strained out every one of the little b@stards.
True but the plan was for the ANA to use them but they turned out to be a bunch of surrender monkeys.
The Taliban leadership had figured out how to game the system that was US ROE. They coordinated attacks on coalition forces, then went across the border and hid in Tribal parts of Pakistan, where US freedom to engage targets was severely curtailed.
All the while, the flow of weapons & intel into Taliban hands (also via Pakistan, courtesy ISI) never stopped as Pak had leverage on the coalition as going through Pak was the only way to resupply forces in Afg.
There was no way the US could have won in Afg. Not unless a decision was taken to invade Pak as well - a nuclear power. That would have costed too much and distracted them from everything else.
Wasn't gonna happen. So the only viable option was to cut losses and leave.
US forces & intel officers served alongside ANA for over a decade. Not being able to gauge their calibre or capability as a fighting force in that amount of time seems unlikely.
Most likely CIA had an assessment that they wouldn't stand for long. Either they told the Biden admin as much, and Biden decided to still leave all that stuff there, or they misled the US govt, willfully or otherwise.
The Taliban leadership had figured out how to game the system that was US ROE. They coordinated attacks on coalition forces, then went across the border and hid in Tribal parts of Pakistan, where US freedom to engage targets was severely curtailed.
All the while, the flow of weapons & intel into Taliban hands (also via Pakistan, courtesy ISI) never stopped as Pak had leverage on the coalition as going through Pak was the only way to resupply forces in Afg.
There was no way the US could have won in Afg. Not unless a decision was taken to invade Pak as well - a nuclear power. That would have costed too much and distracted them from everything else.
Wasn't gonna happen. So the only viable option was to cut losses and leave.
They could have stayed there indefinitely, the losses were trivial and the cost small. Given people proper educations and the Taliban would have been sidelined.
US forces & intel officers served alongside ANA for over a decade. Not being able to gauge their calibre or capability as a fighting force in that amount of time seems unlikely.
Most likely CIA had an assessment that they wouldn't stand for long. Either they told the Biden admin as much, and Biden decided to still leave all that stuff there, or they misled the US govt, willfully or otherwise.
Just guesses. Like I said, same thing would have happened under Trump, it's just convenient for him to claim it wouldn't because he wasn't there to implement HIS decision.
Sounds like every ISAF & Resolute Support brief from 2001-2021.
Anyway, it's pointless to discuss. Afg is the past. There's important lessons in there for groups that might count on the patronage of the US (like the Kurds) though. Now I'm wondering if Ukraine might be next.
Two such withdrawals (one of forces, the other of material support) in the same decade would give a serious beating to America's reputation as a reliable partner that someone can count on to see things through.
The Soviets had a land border with Afghanistan, so not the same thing. Trump wouldn't have planned jack shit he's just show-boating because, fortunately for him, he wasn't in place to realise the consequences of his own decision, so he can blame somebody else. It's basically like when Putin fires somebody for the consequences of his own shit-show.
So you rinse and repeat. They hadn't been making moves to leave until that point, it would have been useful for thinning out the Taliban, they could have killed tens of thousands of them.
Because Trump decided it. India has lost more people in riots than coalition soldiers were lost in Afghanistan during the same period. It was basically a policing operation not a war by the end of it.
It takes time to put enough people through school to change the old guard. 20 years doesn't cut it, you're looking at a century. If they weren't going to stay long-term they should have left in 2011.
Anyway, it's pointless to discuss. Afg is the past. There's important lessons in there for groups that might count on the patronage of the US (like the Kurds) though. Now I'm wondering if Ukraine might be next.
Two such withdrawals (one of forces, the other of material support) in the same decade would give a serious beating to America's reputation as a reliable partner that someone can count on to see things through.
Yeah sure, someone as hasty as Trump would have planned things carefully.
They didn't pretend to leave. Literally all the Taliban were on the move, they could have annihilated them with airstrikes.
They could have stayed there indefinitely, the losses were trivial and the cost small. Given people proper educations and the Taliban would have been sidelined.
Fact is they never tried.
Just guesses. Like I said, same thing would have happened under Trump, it's just convenient for him to claim it wouldn't because he wasn't there to implement HIS decision.
I agree, it's a shithole thta isn't worth the effort.
Seems like 2 centuries of continuous humiliation after 3 Anglo Afghan wars AND the recent occupation of Afghanistan by Anglo led forces has still not taught a lesson to the Anglos.
Previously it was Nicky boy the ex Army Chief in early 2022 just before the war in Ukraine IIRC who expressed interest in re entering Afghanistan after their ignominious exit in 2021 calling the Talibunnies country boys or lads who just enjoyed being lads & now we've Paddy mouthing pretty much similar sentiments.
Can't tell how much of it is a consequence of what I've diagnosed more than 2 years ago as the Paddyfication of the western world especially the Anglosphere & how much is the urge to give in to indulgence in guilty pleasures aka b u m phun or probably it's a combination of both if not the latter exclusively though IMHO it seems to be a combination of both .
The Soviets had a land border with Afghanistan, so not the same thing. Trump wouldn't have planned jack shit he's just show-boating because, fortunately for him, he wasn't in place to realise the consequences of his own decision, so he can blame somebody else. It's basically like when Putin fires somebody for the consequences of his own shit-show.
So you rinse and repeat. They hadn't been making moves to leave until that point, it would have been useful for thinning out the Taliban, they could have killed tens of thousands of them.
Trump also got the US out of the Paris climate agreement. But Biden brought them back in.
The truth is, the decision to leave was bipartisan. Just nobody before Trump could actually bring themselves to sign the decision. Biden admin got careless toward the end because they figured that even if things go wrong, they can blame Trump for it.
India has lost more people in riots than coalition soldiers were lost in Afghanistan during the same period. It was basically a policing operation not a war by the end of it.
In the end, the US left because they figured the losses were avoidable - as peace in Afg was no longer a priority for US interests. If they decide that their priority is going to be China/Pacific region, they'll do the same to Ukraine.
Yes they should have. The killing of OBL was the logical off-ramp from the conflict.
But the counter-insurgency by that point had evolved into a cash cow for the MIC. This type of fighting opened up all kinds of government contracts for everything from MRAPs to highly-accurate Artillery shells (where the cost-benefit ratio may not make sense in a peer conflict but it does in a COIN/MOUT conflict).
So the MIC convinced Obama to stay to pursue a BS mission.
He's not saying withdrawing was a bad move - he just finds fault with the way the Biden admin managed it. He says they should've gotten all the military hardware out before withdrawing the troops.
With the benefit of hindsight, that was about $7 billion* worth of hardware Ukraine could've used.
Man...Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real public health risk in the US.
Also, while this guy's obviously had mental health issues before, I've noticed that the part about him having finally lost his marbles over the Trump victory has been censored/ignored in pretty much all Western mainstream press. But the Times of India did include that bit in their report.
Another example of the press in the West having abandoned their duty as reporters and instead adopted the role of propaganda outlets not unlike the CCP's Global Times, but with a bit more ambiguity regarding who they serve.
FFS, just inform the people and let them make up their own opinions. Don't seek to tell them what to think - they're adults, not kindergarten children.
Pull out a map. The US would have had to fly stuff back, Russia could drive it back over the Afghan border straight into the USSR - Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.
The truth is, the decision to leave was bipartisan. Just nobody before Trump could actually bring themselves to sign the decision. Biden admin got careless toward the end because they figured that even if things go wrong, they can blame Trump for it.
In the end, the US left because they figured the losses were avoidable - as peace in Afg was no longer a priority for US interests. If they decide that their priority is going to be China/Pacific region, they'll do the same to Ukraine.
But the counter-insurgency by that point had evolved into a cash cow for the MIC. This type of fighting opened up all kinds of government contracts for everything from MRAPs to highly-accurate Artillery shells (where the cost-benefit ratio may not make sense in a peer conflict but it does in a COIN/MOUT conflict).
So the MIC convinced Obama to stay to pursue a BS mission.
Well we'll see if it can because there's a lot of planning about continuing the war while the US sits in the corner with its dunce cap on for the next 4 years.
Pull out a map. The US would have had to fly stuff back, Russia could drive it back over the Afghan border straight into the USSR - Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.
Biden could have passed an Executive Order. Even if they needed Congressional approval, after the 2020 polls Democrats had control of both the House & Senate.
They could have stopped it if they wanted to - they didn't.
Yep. But they were comfortable leaving cuz the reason they were staying was never about nation building - it was about keeping the MIC happy.
But with the situation in the Pacific with China getting increasingly confrontational (and remember, the US by that time had authorized export of Javelin ATGMs for fighting in Ukraine's Donbass, they would have had an idea that a Russian pushback would come), the MIC saw other avenues to pursue even larger deals with much higher margins. Seeing how Ukraine turned out, they weren't wrong.
What does India have to do with it? The pivot to INDOPAC would be chiefly because US treaty allies (Japan, SK, Australia) are getting increasingly uncomfortable with China.
Well we'll see if it can because there's a lot of planning about continuing the war while the US sits in the corner with its dunce cap on for the next 4 years.
They can. They have the financial resources for it.
In case they don't have the industrial resources at the moment, they can always just choose to pay others (US & anyone else willing to sell, including India) to make the stuff Ukraine needs to keep fighting the war, like artillery shells.
It's going to cost them a pretty penny (and may take funds out of social welfare programs, something Europe's aging populations aren't going to like) but it's doable.
We'll see if Europe can actually put its money where its mouth is. Or if it's only gonna stand up to Russia as long as the bulk of the money & material comes from the US, but not otherwise.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on Monday that President elect-Trump “and his transition team are already breaking” a law on presidential transition. “Donald Trump and his transition team are already breaking the law,” Warren said in a post on the social platform X. “I would know because I...
Afghanistan has a fast growing economy acting as a bridge, connecting south Asia-central Asia with the Middle East & Europe ultimately. As a World Trade Organization (WTO) member, the country is committed to enable business environment for domestic as well as foreign investors.
USAID helps Afghans to increase access to electricity and potable water; and design, build, and maintain roads, schools, clinics, and hospitals. Security threats, forbidding geography, and shortages of trained technicians all present challenges. USAID is supporting the Government of...
But with the situation in the Pacific with China getting increasingly confrontational (and remember, the US by that time had authorized export of Javelin ATGMs for fighting in Ukraine's Donbass, they would have had an idea that a Russian pushback would come), the MIC saw other avenues to pursue even larger deals with much higher margins. Seeing how Ukraine turned out, they weren't wrong.
What does India have to do with it? The pivot to INDOPAC would be chiefly because US treaty allies (Japan, SK, Australia) are getting increasingly uncomfortable with China.
India has little useful to do with that though as there's zero trust. I wouldn't trust India as far they could be thrown after their position on Ukraine.
In case they don't have the industrial resources at the moment, they can always just choose to pay others (US & anyone else willing to sell, including India) to make the stuff Ukraine needs to keep fighting the war, like artillery shells.
It's going to cost them a pretty penny (and may take funds out of social welfare programs, something Europe's aging populations aren't going to like) but it's doable.
We'll see if Europe can actually put its money where its mouth is. Or if it's only gonna stand up to Russia as long as the bulk of the money & material comes from the US, but not otherwise.
The bulk of the money is already coming from Europe. This is the lie we hear repeated most often by Trump and co.
The US is spending almost as much on aid to Israel just to batter some goat-*censored*ers. He could save the same money just by forcing a ceasefire, with Israel holding the Philadelphia corridor but Hamas keeping what remains of the hostages. Keeping the corridor will save more lives anyway. Trump is probably planning to end the war in Ukraine and expand the war in the ME to include Iran, which is a stupid thing to do in terms of foreign relations in region right now but Trump is nothing if not stupid.
Hey, you were the one saying they should've stayed for a 100 years in Afg. That would've costed way more lives than a cruise through Pak on a highway as part of an armed, armoured convoy, possibly under air cover.
Afghanistan has a fast growing economy acting as a bridge, connecting south Asia-central Asia with the Middle East & Europe ultimately. As a World Trade Organization (WTO) member, the country is committed to enable business environment for domestic as well as foreign investors.
USAID helps Afghans to increase access to electricity and potable water; and design, build, and maintain roads, schools, clinics, and hospitals. Security threats, forbidding geography, and shortages of trained technicians all present challenges. USAID is supporting the Government of...
It was a gravy train. The corruption on the ground (among the Afghan officials) was on an unimaginable scale. The coalition was simply not equipped to fix those problems.
And quite a lot of that money went back to US contractors anyway.
Nation-building in Afghanistan was always a joke. It was never to be. You can't introduce 21st century democracy to what was effectively a 12th century tribal society. You can't fit a millenia of progress into 20 years, and that too, while the Taliban was still active.
The mission in Afg has got to be among the most poorly defined, poorly structured endeavours ever.
In hindsight though - staying politically neutral on Ukraine was absolutely the right decision for us. Adopting the Western standpoint would've been utterly meaningless as it seems Ukraine's territorial integrity would've been compromised anyway as the new Trump admin would probably legitimize Russia's annexation of southeastern Ukraine as part of the peace deal.
So what would have been the point in antagonizing Russia? Even if we did antagonize them because the Americans told us to, it wouldn't have mattered in the end anyway as the American policy would be inconsistent & unreliable. Foolish to spite a 50+ year old partnership for that. I must admit, I thought differently even a few months ago but with Trump looking like he's serious about ending the war even if it means Ukraine loosing its sovereign territory, I'm forced to change my views on the subject. It is simply not safe to engage in anything but a transactional relationship with the US.
On the other hand, India's continued purchase of Russian oil benefited not only our people but the whole world as it helped keep global oil prices down. Even the US acknowledges that, I don't know why you don't:
External Affairs Minister Jaishankar said earlier this month that India was 'pressured' to not buy crude oil from Russia in light of sanctions imposed by US, EU.
theprint.in
If India had not done that, two things would've happened - 1) Russia would've become solely dependent on China for oil revenue & 2) things would've gotten a lot more difficult for Europe as their power bills went up, resulting in far lesser money being available to send to Ukraine.
India also became the chief refining & transshipment hub keeping Europe's lights on.
You should be greatful - because if it wasn't for India, Europe would've had to go to China for buying that refined oil, as they're the only other sizeable importer of price-capped Russian crude. The CCP would've forced several painful concessions out of the EU on matters ranging from trade to Indo-Pacific policy in return.
Indian-made shells are sold to third parties - as it's official policy to not supply any country that is actively at war. The shells are purchased by UK/German/Czech companies, with domestic use stated in the End-User agreement. There's enough IMINT out there that shows clearly that the End-User contract was breached (the shells were sent to Ukraine) but so far the Indian Govt. has turned a blind eye.
The US is spending almost as much on aid to Israel just to batter some goat-*censored*ers. He could save the same money just by forcing a ceasefire, with Israel holding the Philadelphia corridor but Hamas keeping what remains of the hostages. Keeping the corridor will save more lives anyway. Trump is probably planning to end the war in Ukraine and expand the war in the ME to include Iran, which is a stupid thing to do in terms of foreign relations in region right now but Trump is nothing if not stupid.
Trump is the only US president in this century to have not started a war.
Until & unless he goes and changes that, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He might sabre-rattle to get Iran to back off, but I really doubt he's gonna go to war with them.
Look at a topographical map of Iran. It's full of mountains. It's not a flat desert like Iraq where an Armoured division can blitz through in a week.
A boots-on-ground war there would be like Afghanistan x20. The US can't afford that distraction while China continues to make moves on Taiwan.
Hey, you were the one saying they should've stayed for a 100 years in Afg. That would've costed way more lives than a cruise through Pak on a highway as part of an armed, armoured convoy, possibly under air cover.
10 years in Afghanistan actually cost the US less than the aid supplied to Ukraine in 2 years at only $43bn. That's <0.15% of US GDP over 10 years, or 0.015%/year. Side of sofa change.
Turned out very badly for NVA during the campaign but again the blame goes on the guy who pulled out and the guys who banned a proper bombing campaign at the start of the war.
Yep, but nevertheless, he and his voters are responsible for the withdrawal, they're just trying to shift blame because of the sort of people they are.
It was a gravy train. The corruption on the ground (among the Afghan officials) was on an unimaginable scale. The coalition was simply not equipped to fix those problems.
And quite a lot of that money went back to US contractors anyway.
Nation-building in Afghanistan was always a joke. It was never to be. You can't introduce 21st century democracy to what was effectively a 12th century tribal society. You can't fit a millenia of progress into 20 years, and that too, while the Taliban was still active.
The mission in Afg has got to be among the most poorly defined, poorly structured endeavours ever.
Corruption among Afghan officials yes but the US government still spent the money building roads and infrastructure like dams and bridges. But you have to remain long enough for the Taliban to die off and be sidelined.
The Soviet campaign was for annexation and oppression only. Maybe that's exactly what they deserved but the USSR collapsed in 1991 anyway, so it wouldn't have made any difference.
I don't get it - how does India even feature in this? India isn't part of the US force posture in the INDOPAC.
The feeling's mutual.
In hindsight though - staying politically neutral on Ukraine was absolutely the right decision for us. Adopting the Western standpoint would've been utterly meaningless as it seems Ukraine's territorial integrity would've been compromised anyway as the new Trump admin would probably legitimize Russia's annexation of southeastern Ukraine as part of the peace deal.
So what would have been the point in antagonizing Russia? Even if we did antagonize them because the Americans told us to, it wouldn't have mattered in the end anyway as the American policy would be inconsistent & unreliable. Foolish to spite a 50+ year old partnership for that. I must admit, I thought differently even a few months ago but with Trump looking like he's serious about ending the war even if it means Ukraine loosing its sovereign territory, I'm forced to change my views on the subject. It is simply not safe to engage in anything but a transactional relationship with the US.
On the other hand, India's continued purchase of Russian oil benefited not only our people but the whole world as it helped keep global oil prices down. Even the US acknowledges that, I don't know why you don't:
External Affairs Minister Jaishankar said earlier this month that India was 'pressured' to not buy crude oil from Russia in light of sanctions imposed by US, EU.
theprint.in
If India had not done that, two things would've happened - 1) Russia would've become solely dependent on China for oil revenue & 2) things would've gotten a lot more difficult for Europe as their power bills went up, resulting in far lesser money being available to send to Ukraine.
India also became the chief refining & transshipment hub keeping Europe's lights on.
You should be greatful - because if it wasn't for India, Europe would've had to go to China for buying that refined oil, as they're the only other sizeable importer of price-capped Russian crude. The CCP would've forced several painful concessions out of the EU on matters ranging from trade to Indo-Pacific policy in return.
Indian-made shells are sold to third parties - as it's official policy to not supply any country that is actively at war. The shells are purchased by UK/German/Czech companies, with domestic use stated in the End-User agreement. There's enough IMINT out there that shows clearly that the End-User contract was breached (the shells were sent to Ukraine) but so far the Indian Govt. has turned a blind eye.
That graphic is a bit disingenious. You can't compare actual deliverables to 'pledged' amounts. The real chart looks something like this:
Following the EU's decision of large new financial aid, Europe has for the first time surpassed the U.S. in the value of total committed aid to Ukraine. Germany has become the largest donor country in Europe, according to the latest update of the Ukraine Support Tracker. In view of Russia's...
The Team of the Ukraine Support Tracker introduces a new measure to track foreign government aid to Ukraine – government “allocations”. The data show that total European aid has long overtaken U.S. aid - not only in terms of commitments, but also in terms of specific aid allocations sent to...
www.ifw-kiel.de
Committed aid was much larger still, the BBC article conflated committed with delievered. Statista is a poor source.
The Team of the Ukraine Support Tracker introduces a new measure to track foreign government aid to Ukraine – government “allocations”. The data show that total European aid has long overtaken U.S. aid - not only in terms of commitments, but also in terms of specific aid allocations sent to Ukraine. In addition, the approval of the EU's Ukraine Support Facility guarantees further financial assistance. However, the gap between EU commitments and allocations remains very large (€144 billion committed vs. €77 billion allocated). To fully replace U.S. military assistance in 2024, Europe would have to double its current level and pace of arms assistance. These are results from the latest Ukraine Support Tracker update, which now covers aid through January 15, 2024.
He was only in 4 years but he did strike Syria. Trump will likely start a war with Iran. Biden did not start a war, Putin did, get your facts straight.
Until & unless he goes and changes that, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He might sabre-rattle to get Iran to back off, but I really doubt he's gonna go to war with them.
Look at a topographical map of Iran. It's full of mountains. It's not a flat desert like Iraq where an Armoured division can blitz through in a week.
10 years in Afghanistan actually cost the US less than the aid supplied to Ukraine in 2 years at only $43bn. That's <0.15% of US GDP over 10 years, or 0.015%/year. Side of sofa change.
State Dining Room 3:28 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan -- the longest war in
www.whitehouse.gov
"After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan — a cost that researchers at Brown University estimated would be over $300 million a day for 20 years in Afghanistan — for two decades — yes, the American people should hear this: $300 million a day for two decades."
Turned out very badly for NVA during the campaign but again the blame goes on the guy who pulled out and the guys who banned a proper bombing campaign at the start of the war.
Maybe you should blame the guy who thought it'd be a good idea to get into a war without considering whether he has the resources & political capital to see things through.
What exactly did all those South Vietnamese die for?
Yep, but nevertheless, he and his voters are responsible for the withdrawal, they're just trying to shift blame because of the sort of people they are.
Corruption among Afghan officials yes but the US government still spent the money building roads and infrastructure like dams and bridges. But you have to remain long enough for the Taliban to die off and be sidelined.
India built roads, dams, bridges (and even the Afghan Parliament House) as well. That doesn't mean Afg stops being a tribal society at its heart.
In no realistic way can anyone expect the US to remain for a 100 years. That requires the kind of political & policy continuity only monarchical bloodlines can provide (or at least a hereditary dictatorship). Not in a democracy, where policy lasts only about as long as human memory or at best, for as long as a single generation.
Maybe if Trump turns the US into a fascist dictatorship you can expect more policy continuity LOL.
The Soviet campaign was for annexation and oppression only. Maybe that's exactly what they deserved but the USSR collapsed in 1991 anyway, so it wouldn't have made any difference.
Why do you care if the Soviets oppress a bunch of Islamist radicals. The American support to the Mujis was a poorly thought-out knee jerk reaction to the loss suffered due to Soviet & Chinese support to NVA/Viet Cong.
Not saying correlation equals causation but the withdrawal from Afg without achieving any objectives was a key factor leading to collapse in the belief that the Soviet state can get things done.
Following the EU's decision of large new financial aid, Europe has for the first time surpassed the U.S. in the value of total committed aid to Ukraine. Germany has become the largest donor country in Europe, according to the latest update of the Ukraine Support Tracker. In view of Russia's...
The Team of the Ukraine Support Tracker introduces a new measure to track foreign government aid to Ukraine – government “allocations”. The data show that total European aid has long overtaken U.S. aid - not only in terms of commitments, but also in terms of specific aid allocations sent to...
www.ifw-kiel.de
Committed aid was much larger still, the BBC article conflated committed with delievered. Statista is a poor source.
I'm not seeing any of these sources make a distinction between actual aid delivered and amounts pledged/allocated/committed (which are highly unreliable numbers anyway, everything committed does not get delivered).
Even if we assume it is, conservatively the EU is gonna have to at least DOUBLE what they're spending if the US withdraws. And most of that is gonna have to come from Germany which at this point has been in recession for over five consecutive quarters. It's not gonna be popular.
But they're gonna have to do it somehow or Moldova's gonna be next on Putin's itinerary. Or maybe he'll go easy on Europe for as long as Trump's in office and decide to focus on the Caucasus - Georgia is an unfinished project.
He was only in 4 years but he did strike Syria. Trump will likely start a war with Iran. Biden did not start a war, Putin did, get your facts straight.
Biden got the US into the Ukraine war, albeit indirectly. They spent a fairly hefty sum of taxpayer money on it - far more than what Trump's Syria strikes costed.
en.wikipedia.org
