Biden Pledges U.S. 'Will Not Walk Away From Ukraine'

 Dec. 12, 2023 | By Joseph Clark, DOD News 

President Joe Biden pledged that the U.S. will continue to stand with Ukraine following his meeting today with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House.

Biden praised Ukraine's defenders who have pushed back against Russia's full-scale assault for nearly two years, adding that the "American people can and should be incredibly proud of the part they played in supporting Ukraine's success."

"Mr. President, I will not walk away from Ukraine, and neither will the American people," Biden said. 

The two leaders met amid negotiations on Capitol Hill over Biden's supplemental funding request to continue critical military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine.

"The brave people in Ukraine have defied [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's will at every turn, backed by the strong and unwavering support of the United States and our allies and partners in more than 50 nations in Europe and the Indo-Pacific," he said. "Ukraine will emerge from this war proud, free and firmly rooted in the West, unless we walk away."

Spotlight: Support for Ukraine

He said he would continue to provide U.S. military assistance for as long as Congressionally approved funds are available.   

During his address, Biden announced his approval on the latest round of military assistance, valued at $200 million, which includes critically needed air defense interceptors, artillery and ammunition.  

"Without supplemental funding, we are rapidly coming to an end of our ability to help Ukraine respond to the urgent operational demands that it has," he said.

"Putin is banking on the United States failing to deliver for Ukraine," he continued. "We must prove him wrong."  

While in Washington, Zelenskyy met with defense officials and lawmakers to extend his gratitude for the United States' support and underscore the urgent need for that support to continue.

In introductory remarks yesterday ahead of Zelenskyy's address at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III underscored the United States' "unshakable" commitment to support Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression.

"Ukraine matters profoundly to America's security, and to the trajectory of global security in the 21st century," Austin said. "That's why the United States has committed more than $44 billion in security assistance to Ukraine's brave defenders."

He added that the U.S.-led coalition of allies and partners have also contributed more than $37 billion in security assistance to Ukraine. Those contributions include capabilities that "are making a crucial difference on the battlefield," Austin said, and have helped Ukraine recoup more than half of the territory seized by Russia since February 2022.

He said the U.S. and its allies and partners remain "determined to help Ukraine consolidate and extend its battlefield gains, and to build a future force that can ward off Russian aggression in the years ahead."

How much are countries really spending on defence?

 With President Donald Trump entering office for the second time, Nato spending is once again under scrutiny as the United States warns European countries must dig deeper into their pockets.

Defence secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday the US would “no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship” with allies on Ukraine, and warned that other Nato Members needed to spend more on defence.

It comes as Mr Trump announced he had a “highly productive” phone call with Russian president Vladimir Putin, which he said would initiate negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

Other Nato nations have criticised leaving Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky out of the call, with the UK’s defence minister John Healey reiterating that “there can be no negotiation about Ukraine, without Ukraine”.

“Let’s not forget, Russia remains a threat well beyond Ukraine,” added Mr Healey.

The United States is tied with Germany as the biggest net contributor to the Nato common budget – yet the cost is a drop in the ocean in terms of domestic product (GDP), compared to other countries.

How much do countries pay Nato?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) budget for 2025 is approximately £3.8bn, but is paid for at different rates by each of the 32 member states.

The most recent member of Nato is Sweden, which joined in 2024. Ukraine is not a member of Nato, but has repeatedly sought membership since Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014.

The Nato budget is divided into three main parts: the civil budget, military budget, and Nato Security Investment Program.

When looking specifically at the Nato common budget, to which countries make direct contributions, Germany and the United States are both the highest payers overall.

The US contributes 15.8 per cent of the £3.8bn budget, the same as Germany, a far cry from the “90 to 100 per cent” which Trump claimed in an interview last year.

For the estimated £3.8bn in 2025, this will amount to around £603.4m contributed to the Nato budget by the United States.

The United Kingdom is the third biggest contributor, at 11 per cent, amounting to approximately £416.6m this year; followed by France (10.2 per cent) and then Italy (8.5 per cent).

Albania, Macedonia, Iceland and Montenegro all contribute less than 0.1 per cent of the common Nato budget. All four countries have a GDP worth less than 0.1 per cent of the United States.

Separately, since 2006 all Nato members agreed to commit at least 2 per cent of GDP to defence spending in their respective countries.

Since the United States has the biggest GDP and the largest net spending on defence by far, it does make up approximately two-thirds of the Nato alliance’s combined defence spending.

Yet for other countries to match even a proportion of this real-terms defence spending would be much more of a strain on their economies. In addition, the United States’ hefty military budget is not decided solely for Nato reasons, but also for its own military commitments and interests.

While the majority (72 per cent) of Nato Allies were predicted to meet their 2 per cent defence spending pledge last year, it is true that some (eight) countries have spent less than 2 per cent of their GDP on their military budget.

These are Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia. However, these countries (except for Croatia) have increased their military spending from the previous year.

Nato defence spending as percentage of GDP in 2024 (Nato)

In addition, the United States is not the highest spender on defence in terms of GDP; Poland (4.12 per cent) and Estonia (3.43 per cent) are both ahead, and face more risk from being close to Russia’s borders.

In fact, every single Nato member has increased their defence spending in terms of GDP between 2014 and 2024; except for the United States, whose military budget was slightly smaller, according to Nato estimates.

Now, Trump is calling for Nato countries to increase defence spending to meet 5 per cent of GDP; a figure that even the US itself does not reach.

More than doubling the GDP spending commitment would mean a huge jump in real-terms military spending for Nato countries.

For Norway, which will spend approximately 2.15 per cent of GDP on defence in 2025, reaching 5 per cent of GDP would take defence spending from around £7.4bn to over £17bn.

The United Kingdom, which spent around 2.3 per cent of GDP on defence in 2024, would have to increase its budget from around £56.9bn to over £123bn to meet Trump’s 5 per cent goals.

Military personnel

Last year, the United States military made up around 38 per cent of the 3.4 million combined troops from Nato allied countries.

Numbering approximately 1.3 million military personnel in 2024, the United States military stands far higher than any other Nato country; yet this is no surprise, since it is also far larger by population.

The second largest army in Nato is in Turkey, which has a mandatory military service for men, at 355,000 troops. Next are Poland (202,000), France (200,000), and the United Kingdom (185,000), according to the latest IISS Military Balance figures for 2024.

The United States military is also reliant on a good relationship with Nato and its allies. There are around 65,500 US military personnel stationed across Nato countries, according to US Defense Manpower Data Center figures from June 2024.

There are 34,894 US military personnel in Germany and 12,319 based in Italy. The United Kingdom also has over 10,000 US military personnel at various army bases throughout the country.

特朗普对普丁愚蠢的投降

原文作者 Timothy Ash, a Guardian columnist。

特朗普对普丁愚蠢的投降不仅仅是糟糕的交易，而是对乌克兰的出卖。美国和欧洲盟友们在慕尼黑安全会议的前夕，必须牢记那段惨痛的历史，坚决反对绥靖政策。

 

相比于唐纳德.特朗普对普丁正在作出的妥协, 那么内维尔-张伯伦的所作所为看起来就像一个坚持原则的,充满勇气的现实主义者。至少张伯伦当年是在尽力阻止一场迫在眉睫的战争在欧洲爆发, 而特朗普则是处在一场战争之中。1938年的慕尼黑协定, 英法面对纳粹德国出卖了捷克。 特朗普的"慕尼黑"则是在一场重大的安全会议前夕,在他的代表团将要在巴伐利亚的首府与西方盟友举行协商之前。鉴于上一次慕尼黑协定所带来的苦难历史, 那么这一次的慕尼黑会议则必须是欧洲果断回应的开端。

 

特朗普下一步的打算, 类似于一个新的"雅尔塔"会议。 1945年的雅尔塔会议上, 美苏英决定了欧洲国家的命运。 而这一次, 他的计划是美俄来决定乌克兰的命运, 至于乌克兰或者其它欧洲国家是不是参与其中, 则并不那么重要。 只不过这一次会议的地点是沙特, 后续的会谈会在华府和莫斯科, 毕竟位于克里米亚的雅尔塔已经割让给了俄国。 在特朗普和普丁主持的新世界格局里, 实力就是权力, 强权对于领土扩张的要求再正常不过, 就像乌克兰之于俄国, 加拿大和格陵兰之于美国, 或者是台湾之于中国。

 

所有的历史类比都有局限性, 而"慕尼黑"和"雅尔塔"也成为老生常谈。 只不过这一次, 只要我们看一眼其相似和不同之处, 就知道可以说是恰到好处。

 

特朗普当选后的几个星期, 对于乌克兰问题, 人们还都抱有一个渺茫的希望。 希望他这届政府能够按照它所宣扬的"实力带来和平"理念来行事, 毕竟实力是普丁唯一能够听懂的语言。可是现在, 我们才真正认清特朗普所说的实力, 是用来对付美国的朋友们的。而对于美国的敌人, 则是一幅跪舔的嘴脸。

 

这个自己宣称的强人, 在面对世界上的霸权的时候, 是一个不折不扣的弱人。 仅仅在一天之内, 他就作出了四个巨大的, 毫无必要的, 后果严重的妥协。 首先, 他开启了与普丁的试探性对话。 如果对话本身还可以谅解的话, 那么他称呼俄国独裁者为世界领袖就令人作呕了。 "我们谈到了我们各自国家的伟大历史", 特朗普在他们通话后的社交媒体的帖子里如此陈述。 他们还讨论了 "未来我们的合作会带来的巨大利益。但是首先, 我们都同意要停止这场令百万人丧生的俄乌战争"。嗯, 不妨想象一下, 1941年的美国, 不是加入到与欧洲盟国的对德作战, 而是美国总统打电话给希特勒, 谈论"各自国家的伟大历史", 然后讨论共同结束德国与英国的战争。

 

其次, 他提出与俄国领导人双边会谈。 而凌驾于乌克兰人之上, 恰恰是普丁一直期待的新"雅尔塔"。 第三, 他声称乌克兰无法保持领土完整。 第四, 美国不支持乌克兰加入北约。 虽然后面这两点私下里在华盛顿和其它欧洲国家的首都都有提及, 但是在谈判前公开承认, 则大概是"交易的艺术"大师级的反面教材吧? 特朗普的这种骚操作可不是第一次了, 当年在阿富汗和塔利班的谈判, 就是以这位仁兄率先公布撤军时间表开始的, 话说撤军时间表难道不应该是谈判的结果吗? 现在的历史学家, 通过希特勒身边人员的笔记和回忆, 了解到了希特勒当年与张伯伦的交易后的欣喜。 也许以后的有一天, 我们也会了解到普丁在得知特朗普妥协后的欣喜吧。

 

不过, 这些并不意味着近期就会看到类似于和平的东西。 克里姆林宫对于特朗普和普丁的通话保持谨慎的态度, 并警告说"厘清冲突的起因"是必要的。 也许普丁理想中的情形是, 一边在沙特好整以暇的和特朗普举行一系列会谈, 一边在战场上步步紧逼, 摧毁乌克兰的能源基础设施, 从根本上破坏其经济,社会和政治的统一。 当被问及乌克兰在谈判中的角色时, 特朗普提到乌克兰需要一场总统选举, 鹦鹉学舌一般的重复了俄国对泽连斯基合法行的攻击。

 

不过和上一次"慕尼黑和雅尔塔"时代的欧洲相比, 今天的欧洲已经大不相同。 今天的欧洲富裕, 自由, 民主, 是一个由伙伴和盟友组成的紧密结合的共同体。 的确, 最近一次欧洲理事会关于对外事务的民调显示, 欧洲民众对于乌克兰的前途依然充满着分裂和困惑。  但是, 由有共同意愿, 有能力的国家所组成的一个足够坚定的联盟, 当然包括英国, 欧洲依然能够让乌克兰保持前线的稳定, 维持经济的运行, 并最终以实力来促成和谈, 而非出于软弱。 这就是为什么欧洲必须对特朗普的慕尼黑进行反击, 而这个周末的慕尼黑安全会议就是最好的开始。

Trump’s senseless capitulation to Putin is a betrayal of Ukraine – and terrible dealmaking

As the US and its European allies head to the Munich security conference, Europe must learn from its tragic history and oppose appeasement

Donald Trump’s appeasement of Vladimir Putin makes Neville Chamberlain look like a principled, courageous realist. At least Chamberlain was trying to prevent a major European war, whereas Trump is acting in the middle of one. Trump’s “Munich” (synonymous in English with the 1938 deal in which Britain and France sold out Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany) comes on the eve of the big security conference in today’s Bavarian capital, where his emissaries will meet western allies. That Munich security conference must be the beginning of a decisive European response, learning from our own tragic history in order to avoid repeating it.

The next step Trump proposes is in effect a new “Yalta” (referring to the February 1945 US-Soviet-UK summit in the Crimean resort of Yalta, which has become synonymous with superpowers deciding the fate of European countries over their heads). In this case, his proposal is that the US and Russia should decide the fate of Ukraine with marginal if any involvement of Ukraine or other European countries. But this time the occupants of the White House and the Kremlin should meet first in Saudi Arabia, then in their respective capitals, while it seems the actual Yalta, in the Crimea, is to be ceded to Russia. For in the brave new world of Trump and Putin, might is right and territorial expansion is what great powers do, be it Russia to Ukraine, the US to Canada and Greenland – or China to Taiwan.

All historical analogies have their limits and those with “Munich” and “Yalta” have been overused. But here, for once, they do feel apposite – so long as we highlight differences as well as similarities.

For a few weeks after Trump’s election we had a faint hope that when it came to Ukraine his administration would follow its proclaimed motto of “peace through strength”, understanding that strength is the only language Putin comprehends. Now we see that Trump not only bullies his country’s friends but sucks up to his country’s enemies.

This so-called strongman is actually a weak man when it comes to confronting the hostile authoritarians of this world. In just one day, he has made four large, unnecessary and damaging concessions. First, he has not just initiated exploratory talks with Putin via an intermediary, which would be defensible, but personally given the Russian dictator fulsome and sycophantic recognition as a world leader. “We both reflected on the Great History of our Nations,” he reported of their long phone call, in a social media post. They discussed “the great benefit that we will someday have in working together. But first, as we both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine.” Imagine if in 1941, instead of entering the war against Nazi Germany on the side of Britain and other allied European nations, the president of the United States had rung up Hitler, reflected on “the Great History of our Nations”, and then talked about jointly ending “the War with Germany/Britain”.

Second, he has offered the Russian leader a bilateral US-Russian negotiation over the heads of the Ukrainians, precisely the kind of new Yalta that Putin has always wanted. And then, third and fourth, he has declared that Ukraine will almost certainly have to concede territory and that the US will not support its membership of Nato. Both those things have been said privately in Washington and other western capitals for some time, but publicly conceding them upfront is a masterclass in how not to practise the “art of the deal”. (He did something similar in negotiations with the Taliban over Afghanistan, starting rather than ending with a timetable for US withdrawal.) Historians now have the notes and recollections of those close to Hitler, documenting his delight at the deal he exacted from Chamberlain. One day, we may have similar evidence of Putin’s private glee at the concessions made by Trump.

This doesn’t mean there will be anything deserving the name of peace any time soon. The Kremlin’s first public readout from the Trump-Putin call was notably cautious, warning that it is “essential to settle the reasons for the conflict”. Probably Putin’s ideal scenario would be to keep talking peace with Trump, through a series of leisurely summits in Saudi Arabia, the US and Russia, while Russia continues to press forward on the battlefield, demolish Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and undermine its economy, society and political unity in other ways. (Asked about the involvement of Ukraine in the talks, Trump mentioned the need for a presidential election there, thus parroting a Russian attack line on the legitimacy of president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.)

There’s one huge difference between Europe at the time of the original Munich and Yalta, and Europe now. Today’s Europe is rich, free, democratic and a closely integrated community of partners and allies. Yes, as recent polling by the European Council on Foreign Relations again demonstrates, it’s also divided and confused about the best way forward for Ukraine. But with a sufficiently determined coalition of willing and capable countries, definitely including Britain, Europe can still enable Ukraine to stabilise the frontline, hold up economically and eventually get to negotiate from strength, not weakness. That’s why this weekend’s Munich security conference must be the beginning of a European riposte to Trump’s Munich.